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.
- Tech Companies Should Strongly Consider Monetizing Their Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn
- (Not) Copyright Infringement: Is dbrand Infringing Nintendo’s IP?
- The Transmissibility of Information: How Your Trade Secrets Are Like a Virus
- Examining Antitrust Guidance on Cooperation in Fighting COVID-19
- Everything Depends on Coronavirus R&D Partnerships—Don’t Let the Critics Wreck Them
- ‘Unalienable Rights’: Understanding America’s Growing Disdain for Physical and Intangible Property
- This Week in Washington IP: Algorithmic Biases in AI, Federal Funding of R&D Programs and Digitalization-Driven Improvements to Energy Efficiency
- Supreme Court’s Booking.com Ruling Signals Uptick in Registration of ‘Generic.com’ Marks
- Sixth Annual Firecracker 25: My Best Songs of All Time
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 3: Busy Week for USPTO Announcements, New Vision Gaming Says PTAB Institution Process is Unconstitutional, Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Enbrel Patent Claims