Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability

By Duffy, John F. | William and Mary Law Review, November 2009 | Go to article overview

Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability


Duffy, John F., William and Mary Law Review


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

  I. CHALLENGES IN DEFINING THE LIMITS OF PATENTABILITY

 II. THE HISTORY OF FAILED PATENTABILITY RULES
     A. The Unpatentability of Changes in Form and Proportions
     B. The Unpatentability of Plants and Animals
     C. The Unpatentability of New Uses
     D. The Unpatentability of Methods of Medical Treatment

III. THE MODEST SUCCESS OF PATENTABILITY STANDARDS
     A. The Unpatentability of Natural Principles and Phenomena
     B. The Unpatentability of Abstract Ideas

 IV. THE FATE OF THE RULE FROM THE BILSKI EN BANC

CONCLUSION: THE FAILURE OF RULES AND THE VALUE OF FAILURE

INTRODUCTION

Courts and legislatures face a fundamental dilemma in constructing the law of patents. Patents convey property rights, and a substantial degree of certainty is usually thought to be helpful, or even essential to well functioning property rights. (1) Yet patents also cover invention, and human inventiveness by its nature unsettles certainty, changes the status quo, and breaks through preexisting assumptions.

In legal doctrine, the conflict between certainty and creativity plays out within the familiar jurisprudential debate between rules and standards. (2) Clear rules can provide the certainty that encourages investment both in obtaining and developing the rights, but standards can provide the flexibility to accommodate the new and unpredictable wonders of human ingenuity. The stakes of this traditional debate are highest for the doctrine of patentable subject matter, which governs the fundamental boundaries of the patent law's domain.

The latest controversy in the field of patentable subject matter provides a perfect example. In the en banc decision In re Bilski, (3) rendered in the fall of 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled its prior doctrinal test and established a new rule--not a flexible standard--for determining whether a process is patentable subject matter: "[A] claimed process is surely patent-eligible under [section] 101," the Bilski majority confidently announced, "if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." (4)

The Federal Circuit identified that its overarching goal was to "clarify the standards applicable in determining whether a claimed method constitutes a statutory 'process' under [section] 101." (5) Because clarification was the goal, it is unsurprising that the Federal Circuit attempted to articulate a definite rule to govern this area of law, and the court plainly understood that it was choosing to attempt a more rule-based approach in this area of law. The court repeatedly referred to its new doctrine as "the machine-or-transformation test," (6) emphasized that its new test "is the only applicable test and must be applied ... when evaluating the patent-eligibility of process claims," (7) and warned that "[n]either the PTO nor the courts may pay short shrift to the machine-or-transformation test by using purported equivalents or shortcuts such as a 'technological arts' requirement." (8) Nothing in the en banc opinion suggested that the court envisioned that future three-judge panels or Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examiners would have to weigh and balance a variety of competing policy considerations to apply the court's new machine-or-transformation test.

In announcing its new test, the Bilski court expressly disavowed the analysis that had been set forth in its 1994 en banc decision In re Alappat, (9) and had been applied in its 1998 and 1999 panel decisions, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group (10) and AT& T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc. (11) That line of cases had, in turn, disavowed an even earlier test, known as the Freeman-Walter-Abele test, which derived from three cases decided between 1978 and 1982. (12) Thus, the Federal Circuit and its predecessor court have changed the rules governing patentable subject matter no less than three times in thirty years. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Rules and Standards on the Forefront of Patentability
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.