Some courts have characterized this final inquiry as “the hunt for the inventive concept.” That would make some logical sense if and only if a claimed invention that is novel and non-obvious would be necessarily found to have satisfied the inventive concept requirement. Alas, that is not the case. Under the ridiculously bastardized law of patent eligibility foisted upon us by the Supreme Court it is actually possible for a claimed invention to be both new and non-obvious and to somehow not exhibit an inventive concept under what is considered a proper patent eligibility analysis. Of course, it is a logical impossibility for a claimed invention to be both novel and non-obvious while simultaneously not exhibiting an inventive concept. If something is new and non-obvious it is by definition inventive. This disconnect merely demonstrates the objective absurdity of the Alice/Mayoframework.
The post Why isn’t Congress Upset about Judicial Exceptions to Patent Eligibility? appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- UPC vs. EPO Oppositions: Lessons from Recent UPC Case Law
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 11: CAFC Denies Transfer of EDTX Patent Case; Texas Leads Entire U.S. in IP Exports; and Google Declines to Respond to Cellspin Soft Cert Petition
- Federal Circuit Issues Precedential Order Denying Mandamus Relief for SAP, Despite District Court Errors
- CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Opposition to iVoters Marks But Hints USPTO Should Reconsider Registration
- Why Creativity and Ownership Are Crucial to Innovation | IPWatchdog Unleashed