The Supreme Court has never quite grasped the distinction between patent eligibility and patentability. Eligibility involves entire subject matter categories or fields of inventive enterprise, like the categories “process, machine, [article of] manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. 101. Ascertaining eligibility should therefore require little more than checking the patent title and ensuring that, in the words of the venerable Judge Giles Rich, “[the invention] produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.” State Street Bank v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In simple terms, Section 101 requires little more for eligibility than a showing that an invention has applied natural principles to achieve a concrete purpose within the expansive categories articulated by Thomas Jefferson in 1793. Patentability, on the other hand, proceeds as a detailed claim-by-claim, feature-by-feature examination of “the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. 101. Ironically this fundamental distinction that eludes the Supreme Court is explicit in the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. 101 itself.
Recent Posts
- Massie Tells House IP Subcommittee Witnesses He’s ‘Appalled’ By Proposals to Rein in ITC’s Patent Powers
- CAFC Invalidates Remaining Claim on Data Transmission Patent, Remands Substitute Claims for Collateral Estoppel Determination
- NIH Intramural Licensing Guidelines Hit the Wrong Note at the Wrong Time
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 19: UPC Issues First-Ever Patent Revocation; Meta Announces Latest AI Model Won’t be Released in EU Due to Regulatory Concerns; and CAFC Dismisses PTAB Appeal as Moot Due to Prior District Court Invalidation
- Federal Circuit Affirms Ineligibility of Background Check Patent Claims