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.
- Understanding IP Matters: Piracy or Policy? Maintaining U.S. Technology Leadership in the Digital Age
- AI and Trade Secrets: A Winning Combination
- A New Era of Copyright Litigation in Hollywood: Revisiting Pirates of the Caribbean One Year Later
- Federal Circuit Vacates TTAB Decision as Arbitrary and Capricious
- ‘I Want to Thank You’: Who and What IP Stakeholders are Giving Thanks for This Year