Critique Of Pozzoli Case: Inventive Step Test

§ 101. However, since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on June 19, 2014, through May 31, 2016, district courts have issued 97 decisions on these types of motions. This is nearly a 400% increase in the total number of motions to dismiss filed since Alice. By a mere glance of the statistical data, one can see the rising number of motions to dismiss based on invalidation of claims directed to patent-ineligible concepts is the direct result of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in mid-2014. In addition to the fact that the two and a half years prior to Alice, district courts decided only 20 decisions on these motions, the total number of these motions experienced a downward trend each year prior to Alice. In 2013, district courts saw a decrease of 30% in the total number of these motions filed compared to 2012. Similarly, in the first half of 2014, district courts saw a decrease in the total number of these motions filed compared to

A patent is a twenty year exclusive monopoly on the right to make, use and sell a qualifying invention. This legal monopoly is considered a reward for the time and effort expended in creating the invention. In return, the invention must be described in detail to the Patent Office, which publishes the information, thus increasing the amount of technological knowledge available to the public. To obtain a U.S. patent, an inventor must apply to the Patent Office and demonstrate that the invention is new (as compared to prior technology), useful, and "nonobvious." An invention is nonobvious if it is more than a trivial, obvious next step in the advance of the technology. Software patents can be extremely powerful economic tools. They can protect features of a program that cannot be protected under copyright or trade secret law. For example, patents can be obtained for ideas, systems, methods, algorithms, and functions embodied in a software product: editing functions, user-interface features, compiling techniques, operating system techniques, program algorithms, menu arrangements, display presentations or arrangements, and program language translation methods. Since patent rights are exclusive, anyone making, using or selling the

For an invention to be patentable it should be novel, not obvious and useful. Novelty means the invention must not have been made public prior to the application for a patent. If an invention is already available to the public it cannot be patented. It is not only important that the idea is new but it should also not be obvious. An invention is considered obvious and ineligible for a patent if an individual with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider it obvious. The third requirement is that the patent should be useful. This means that the invention should have practical utility. In Bernard and Rand’s case, their invention is not novel because it only manipulates an existing idea. Additionally, their invention solves a mathematical problem that is obvious to an individual with ordinary skills in the field. Their invention is not patentable because it does not satisfy the requirements for patentability (Henry

§101 cases are a particularly vexing subject for currently practicing patent attorneys. Specifically, there is a high state of flux with respect to patentable subject matter, causing uncertainty not only for attorneys, but also for inventors, investors, and engineers, whose life blood depends upon the patent system. A “101 conundrum” has resulted from Supreme Court’s creation of ineligible categories of patentable subject matter. These categories are: abstract ideas, laws of nature, and naturally occurring substances . The Supreme Court has neglected to define these categories , and attempts to define them have been rejected . While determining whether a claimed invention is directed to an ineligible category or not should be binary and

Currently, Stryker Corporation is in a law suit centered on patent infringement with their competitor, Zimmer Corporation. The case which will be analyzed and explored is currently pending hearing by the Supreme Court. The current questions that the petitioners, Stryker, are asking of the Supreme Court are as follows:

Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 19, 29, 32, 33 & 39 also lack an inventive step for the reasons given above. An invention is necessarily obvious in the light of its disclosure.

In the U.S. Code section 101 of title 35, the patent law allows for a patent on inventions and discoveries on machine, manufacture, or useful improvement, but it rejects anything involving laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. In the legal case, Bilski v. Kappos (2010), the Supreme Court was forced to find a new set of rules on software patenting. The case was over a software that used a mathematical formula to minimize risks from fluctuations in market demand. Before the case, patenting for software dragged on in court due to the Patent Act 101 machine or transformation test. Under that test, a patent is eligible if it involves a machine or apparatus or if it transforms something into a different state. The patent was rejected under 101 because it was too abstract and not an invention. Following the case, the Supreme Court examined the machine or transformation test and acknowledged that the test is not the only way to find if a patent is eligible. The ruling opened up more opportunities to define new processes for patenting software.

the asserted claims are eligible for patent. The District Court held that the claims are patent ineligible

A patent is a right granted to a person or legal entity (corporation) giving them the exclusive right to their inventions for a period of 20 years. This protects the new inventions and prevents others from using the invention without necessary permission from the inventor or their employer. The inventor has a right to how the invention is made, and how it is been used. In exchange for this right, the patent owner makes technical information about the invention publicly available in the published patent document. (Anon., 2016)

A patent is a copyright protection issued by the government for an invention, which prevents others from stealing their idea. Profit can also be made off of this idea for a certain period of time with a patent.

A utility patent protects inventions such as machines, processes, and compositions of matter. In the United States, congress typically oversees the distribution of patents; however, state governments may also oversee and grant intellectual property rights to individuals if the request does not conflict with federal intellectual property laws and regulations. When inventors petition for utility patents to protect their creations, the inventions must meet specific criterion. The inventions must be functional, serviceable, original, and non-obvious. If the inventions meet the specific requirement than the applicant is granted the patent and its benefits.

The U.S. constitution gave Congress the power to “ promote the devellopment of the useful arts” by granting exclusive rights to inventers for a limited period of time. The purpose of a patent was to assurre the rights of the creators in exchange for not keeping these inventions secret, thus overall knowledge base grows.

The obviousness contention of patents takes four primary concepts into consideration after Graham et al. v. John Deere Co.: 1) the scope of the prior art, 2) the level of ordinary skill in the art, 3) differences between the new inventions and prior art, 4)Evidence of not being obvious. These contentions of obviousness have since been expanded by KSR v. Teleflex. This introduced the idea of a person having ordinary skills in the arts. Subsequently this shifted the litmus test to if a person with ordinary skill in the arts are given the elements of the invention would they be able to replicate the invention without any help.

For a copyright, an author must distinguish the requirement of originality, which means, “The work owes its origin to the author, is independently created and not copied from other works.” (Macrina, 2014 p.299). in regards to a patent, the inventor must distinguish the requirement of novelty. Novelty is defined as the invention must not have previously existed in any way or have been used by other individuals. For an inventor to prove novelty they must also prove the invention has not been described in a publication worldwide (Macrina, 2014 p.299). Obviously, the requirement of originality is much easier to prove than the novelty of an invention, which results in copyright infringement being difficult to prove since the individual must have evidence of not only similarity but verbatim copying of the original work. When filing to have a patent on an invention or subject matter, the main criteria are, “It must be useful, new or novel, nonobvious and reduced to practice.” (Macrina, 2014 p.306).

In Article 1 of the Patent Law, it states the right to patent protection for “inventions-creations.” Article 2 defines inventions-creations as inventions, utility models, and designs. These are also defined by rule 2 of the Implementing Regulations: