The present U.S. eligibility jurisprudence, and especially that of the Federal Circuit, not only creates serious issues of U.S. domestic law but also arguably places the U.S. in violation of its obligations under the TRIPS treaty with respect to inventions at both ends of the subject-matter spectrum. Acts of Congress, including Section 101, where fairly possible, ought to be construed so as not to conflict with international law or with an international agreement with the United States, particularly where, as with TRIPS, the United States was the moving spirit behind the treaty. See Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). Although there may have been room for doubt prior to the en banc refusal in Athena and the Australian decision in Ariosa, it is submitted following Judge Moore’s dissent that the situation has become a virtual certainty.
- Noncompete Agreements: Finding the Balance Between Reasonable Restraints and Free Range Talent
- Building High-Quality Patent Portfolios in the United States and Europe: Part II – Software Patents
- Biden Executive Order’s Approach to SEPs Sells Out American Small Businesses and Innovators
- Billionaire Space Race Between Bezos and Branson (and Musk) Pushes Forward Next Generation of Spaceflight Innovation
- The Washington Football Team’s Trademark Journey: Over the Bumps and Full Speed Ahead
- COVID IP Waiver Attempts are Becoming Harder to Justify
- Coons and Hirono Raise Concerns Over Pride in Patent Ownership Act Penalties
- The Fintiv Deception: Leahy’s Legislative ‘Fix’ is Unwarranted in Light of Sotera Wireless
- An Ax(le) Needs Grinding: Can the Federal Circuit Turn the Wheel?
- India’s Prius Judgment and Trans-Border Reputation of Trademarks