Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Another Turn in the Path to Patentability

By Stuart Meyer
April 27, 2012

In the April issue of The Intellectual Property Strategist, we detailed a growing rift in the Federal Circuit regarding the issue of patentable subject matter, and pondered whether the Supreme Court would resolve this issue when it came out with its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150. We did not have to wait long, as the decision was issued on March 20. The Supreme Court held that a method claim that does nothing more than restate a law of nature and add conventional steps cannot be patentable. At first glance, this may not sound remarkable, but upon closer inspection this holding has the potential to dramatically change patent law for decades to come.

In Bilski, the rejection of the claims at issue was unanimous, but the Court was deeply divided in its reasoning and came within a single vote of categorically eliminating business methods from the scope of patentable subject matter. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). In Mayo, the Court spoke with one voice, with no Justice submitting a separate concurring opinion. As we head toward the middle of 2012, we have not only the Mayo and Bilski opinions on patentability, but also recently enacted patent reform hailed as the most significant in 50 years (the America Invents Act or AIA, signed into law in September 2011) as well as numerous guidelines and proposed rules set forth by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Yet even with all three branches of government having spoken directly on the issue, we astonishingly still do not have clear guidance for how to determine whether a method claim is patent-eligible. How is that possible? We examine these developments in turn to find out.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of Licensee Image

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."