Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

The Debate Surrounding Patent Eligible Subject Matter; As Illustrated By Me Arguing With Some Guy At A Party

Written by: on November 11, 2015 | Category: Blog | Tags:

Guy at party:  I have an idea I want to patent.

Me:  You can’t protect an idea with a patent.

Guy:  Shark Tank said you can protect your idea.

Me:  Shark Tank didn’t say that.

Guy:  Who even invited you to this party?

Me:  (inaudible mumbling)

Section 101 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 101 et al.) defines patentable subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”  Implied exceptions to eligibility include abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.  See, Guy at Party, you can’t patent your idea!  Most people have good ideas that translate into a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.  However, technological advances and our growing “knowledge” economy have challenged the four categories of patentable matter, especially in three industries: biotechnology, including genes and living things; information technology, including computer programs and software; and business methods.  Since 2012, there have been three Supreme Court cases and four guidance publications issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the topic of subject matter eligibility, which have led to a gentle panic among those in the know.

The major recent cases addressing eligible subject matter are: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)); Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013)); and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)).  In these three cases, the Supreme Court shook the IP world by invalidating patents for genetic and biomarker diagnostic tests/treatment and financial transactions, risk evaluation and methods.  In July, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Eligibility Examination Guidelines, which supplemented and updated the 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility with recent case law and clarification as to what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter.  The period for public comment on the guidelines ended at the end of October – various comments from large and small companies, bar associations and individuals are available on the USPTO website.  Now we wait and see how the PTO responds, while thousands of patent applications and inventions hang in the balance…

Attorney Nicole J. O’Hara, a member of the firm’s Business Services Group, has specific experience with intellectual property law.  She works with businesses large and small, advancing and managing patent portfolios, drafting patent applications, and resolving trademark, copyright, trade secret, and patent-related issues. She also negotiates contracts for the commercialization of intellectual property including licenses, confidentiality, material transfer, inter-institutional, service, and research contracts.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog