In supreme irony, the U.S. Supreme Court lists the three exceptions to statutory patent eligibility in Chakrabarty, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) — the case most famous for the observation that Thomas Jefferson’s statutory language from the 1793 Act (still in place today) covers “anything under the sun made by man.” Id. at 309. While construing Jefferson’s “broad” statutory language in 35 U.S.C. 101 with “wide scope,” the Court noted: “The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” Id. The Court tries to support this listing with a string citation to several cases — each standing for something different than an exception from statutory language. Still, to ensure clarity, the Court gives examples: “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.” Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2, nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.” Id. So far so good, but this classic example of the Court trying to sound informed and competent out of its comfort zone reemerges 30 years later to replace (and effectively overrule) the statutory rule that governed for over 200 years and remains in Title 35.
Recent Posts
- USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces She Will Resign in Early December
- Only Congressional Patent Reform Can Restore Constitutional Rights
- ParkerVision is Latest to Petition SCOTUS for Review of CAFC’s ‘Heavy Reliance’ on Rule 36
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, November 8: Judge Dismisses Copyright Lawsuit Against OpenAI Filed by News Outlets; Reports Finds Record Number of Global Patent Filings; ITC Finds Semiconductor Company Infringed on Competitor’s Patent
- How Bayh-Dole Supporters Made a Successful Goal Line Stand