Is Patent Eligibility Doctrine in Need of Reform?

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
  • Between 2010-2014, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions resulting in the Mayo-Alice two-step test for what counts as an invention or discovery eligible for patent protection. In the ensuing decade, the issue of whether this test is indeterminate, too restrictive, or both, has been vigorously debated by lawyers, judges, and scholars. Recently, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which would abrogate the Mayo-Alice test among other substantive and procedural reforms to patent eligibility doctrine. This webinar discussed PERA and its implications for the U.S. innovation economy as leader in innovation in the 21st century facing new challenges from global competitors like China.
    Featuring:
    Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
    Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
    Hon. Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Honorary Professor, Tsinghua University
    Moderator: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP
    * * * * *
    As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Komentáře • 1

  • @paxdriver
    @paxdriver Před měsícem

    29:12 it's not so complicated to have devoted his entire time to mayo, judge Raider:
    So, a tool or piece of software that hides the formula for dosage behind the black box of the tool WOULD be patentable, but the problem is that would create an artificial reliance on a tool rather than empowering doctors to simply know the formula.
    He doesn't seem to understand the actual issue at hand. The unnecessary restrictions locking the formula behind the tool being required to grant the patent, that would be a disservice to society but the simple / proper release of information (the discovery of dosage formula in this case) would not permit the inventor to claim royalty on the discovery, and that is the issue imho.