Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message

×

News & Education

Back to Minnesota Articles

Filter by:

Is the Pendulum Swinging Back?

The issue of “patent eligible subject matter” received little attention in the U.S. Then the Supreme Court stepped in and created chaos where certainty previously existed. Now, there is an effort in Congress to restore order and, at the same time, reassert Congressional power.

Patent-eligible subject matter in the U.S includes five statutory categories. These are identified in § 101 of the Patent Act as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Over time, the courts created several well understood, and uncontroversial, exceptions to § 101. Specifically laws of nature, natural phenomenon and abstract ideas were found not patent eligible under various court rulings.

Three Supreme Court cases, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), tightened the reigns on when an invention is to be considered “patent eligible subject matter.” In Bilski and Alice, the Court created a two-step test for determining patent eligibility: (1) determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea; and (2) determine whether the claim’s elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application.

With regard to the first step, the Supreme Court declined to establish a definitive rule for determining what constitutes an “abstract idea.” Instead, courts compared any claims at issue to claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea. In the wake of Alice, lower courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) were, almost routinely, finding patent claims directed to software to be “patent ineligible.” Inventions related to medical tests were also found to be patent ineligible on the theory that they were based on laws of nature or natural phenomenon and there was not the requisite transformation. The Alice test was also employed to invalidate patents related to other technologies.

Earlier this year the USPTO issued new guidelines for applicants and examiners to use to determine patent eligibility. PendulumMany praised the new guidelines as a positive step toward restoring clarity. Within three months, however, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over most patent matters, held that the courts are not “bound by [the USPTO’s] guidance” and that any deference to be given to the decisions of the USPTO is outweighed by “consistent application of [§ 101] case law”. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2019).

With the executive branch (USPTO) and the courts clearly at odds with each other, members of Congress from both parties are stepping into the fray. Several are looking to amend § 101 of the Patent Act to restore clarity.

A draft bill is being circulated. Perhaps the most interesting part of the draft bill is a provision that reads “No implicit or other judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility, including ‘abstract ideas,’ ‘laws of nature,’ or ‘natural phenomena,’ shall be used to determine patent eligibility under section 101, and all cases establishing or interpreting those exceptions to eligibility are hereby abrogated.”

If passed, Congress would be sending a clear message to the courts. Determining patent eligibility is exclusively the province of Congress and a court’s role is to interpret and apply the rules enacted by Congress rather than create exceptions to those rules not found in the patent statutes.

About the Author

James Nikolai is an intellectual property attorney in DeWitt’s Minneapolis office. Jim has substantial experience representing clients in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, software protection and licensing. He has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in litigating intellectual property claims. If you have any intellectual property questions, you can reach Jim by email or at (612) 305-1518.

Disclaimer

One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations

Madison

2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions

Minneapolis

2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions


Get to know us

DeWitt LLP is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly 140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Leadership
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us

Partners

We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia and an active member of SCG Legal, an association of more than 140 independent law firms serving businesses in all 50 state capitals and major commercial centers around the world.

Awards

Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018
  • BLF-Badge-2019

NOTICE

While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.