{"id":4822,"date":"2017-02-01T19:40:45","date_gmt":"2017-02-01T19:40:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sls.gmu.edu\/cpip\/?p=4822"},"modified":"2026-02-03T21:02:17","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T21:02:17","slug":"ipo-proposes-legislative-solution-to-the-morass-of-patent-eligibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2017\/02\/01\/ipo-proposes-legislative-solution-to-the-morass-of-patent-eligibility\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] IPO Proposes Legislative Solution to the Morass of Patent Eligibility"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"U.S.On January 31, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO<\/a>) released a proposed revision<\/a> to the section of the Patent Act that defines the subject matter eligible for patenting.<\/p>\n

IPO\u2019s proposed text for an amended 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 can be downloaded here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The proposal returns patent law to the long established practice of analyzing the \u201cclaimed invention as a whole\u201d rather than breaking the invention into parts and analyzing the parts separately.\u00a0 Breaking an invention into component parts has allowed courts to decide that oil rigs<\/a>, MRI machines<\/a>, and detecting fetal abnormalities<\/a> are simply not the kinds of technologies that should be patentable.<\/p>\n

The historical and legal importance of considering inventions as a whole was the subject of a Supreme Court amicus<\/em> brief<\/a> by 19 law professors, led by CPIP\u2019s Adam Mossoff<\/a> and joined by other CPIP Senior Scholars and renowned academics. \u00a0\u00a0The brief in support of the petitioner in Sequenom v. Ariosa<\/em> showed how analyzing the claimed invention as a whole is necessary to prevent indeterminacy from ruining patent law.\u00a0 Without the requirement to analyze patents as a whole, famous patents including the telegraph and telephone would be declared ineligible for patenting.\u00a0 The approach advocated for in the amicus <\/em>brief is the same one adopted in the proposed statutory revision.<\/p>\n

IPO\u2019s proposal also codifies and limits<\/a> the exceptions to patentability that have led to substantial uncertainty about the eligibility of software patents.\u00a0 I have <\/a>discussed why software patents are important<\/a> and the need for a legislative fix to this uncertainty that confirms the eligibility of software patents.\u00a0 The IPO proposal adopts a clear and practical legislative fix by limiting the exceptions to prevent patenting of subject matter that only \u201cexists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity, or exists solely in the human mind.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed revision comes amidst a growing chorus of calls for legislative action to bring clarity to \u00a7 101.\u00a0 In response to a call for comments<\/a> on subject matter eligibility from the USPTO, numerous organizations such as AIPLA<\/a>, ABA<\/a>, and PhRMA<\/a> called for \u00a7 101 to be revised to reflect the need to protect innovation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On January 31, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) released a proposed revision to the section of the Patent Act that defines the subject matter eligible for patenting. IPO\u2019s proposed text for an amended 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 can be downloaded here. The proposal returns patent law to the long established practice of analyzing the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3627,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3627"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4822"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15824,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4822\/revisions\/15824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}