Below is a post from Patent Attorney Gene Quinn, author of the blog IPWatchdog.com. Gene is complaining of the same topic of my Friday post entitled “Known Technology is Not Abstract” and regarding the absurd position of the several Federal Circuit Justices asserting inclusion of an “abstract idea” within a patent claim as defeating patent eligibility.
All of this has erupted from the focus of the last ten or so years on section 101 of 35 USC. Basically all inventions are patentable subject matter provided the invention is not claiming a natural law, law of nature, abstract idea. But many properly patentable inventions incorporate or claim a novel application of a natural law or abstract idea. They do not attempt, however, to claim a monopoly on the entire natural law or abstract idea, but rather one specific, limited but novel application of it.
In the highly competitive and international race to develop the next generation of technology, the courts should be strengthening the scope of patent protection.
Below is the text of Gene Quinn’s blog post:
By Gene Quinn on Aug 25, 2019 12:15 pm
The Federal Circuit recently reversed the District of Minnesota’s denial of summary judgment in Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22516 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) (Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Chen, Circuit Judge), holding that the claims at issue, which related to processing paper checks, were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The physicality of the limitations of the claims did not save the claims. See Physicality of Processing Paper Checks Does Not Save Solutran’s Claims. “[W]e have previously explained that merely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim—even if the idea is novel and non-obvious—is not enough to save it from ineligibility,” Judge Raymond Chen of the Federal Circuit explained for the majority. The Federal Circuit can state that proposition until every single judge is blue in the face and there will be one exhausting, inescapable truth—it is wrong! Indeed, this logical impossibility is written into so many Federal Circuit decisions one must wonder how it is possible any of the judges who believe this nonsense were ever able to achieve an acceptable score on the LSAT in order to gain admission to law school in the first place.