Professor Dennis Crouch at Patently-O mentions that a petition has been filed (the DataTreasury Case) where the chief legal issue is whether a court is required to perform a 35 U.S.C. Section 103 analysis in order to determine whether the invention is stautorily eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
In my opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court erred in Mayo vs. Prometheus and only doubled down on its error in its later decided companion case Alice vs. CLS. Whether an invention is obvious or novel are separate questions from whether the invention is directed to statutorily eligible subject matter. Kinder lower courts have opined that a 102/103 analysis may better help "inform" a court when it makes its 101 analysis, but such analyses should be limited to those cases.
As mentioned earlier, this approach would make some inroads into the Alice/Mayo framework, however, at the end of the day the Supreme Court still gets the last word.
In my opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court erred in Mayo vs. Prometheus and only doubled down on its error in its later decided companion case Alice vs. CLS. Whether an invention is obvious or novel are separate questions from whether the invention is directed to statutorily eligible subject matter. Kinder lower courts have opined that a 102/103 analysis may better help "inform" a court when it makes its 101 analysis, but such analyses should be limited to those cases.
As mentioned earlier, this approach would make some inroads into the Alice/Mayo framework, however, at the end of the day the Supreme Court still gets the last word.
RSS Feed