Since 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the question of how to interpret 35 U.S.C. Section 101, and thereby determine what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter, four times. Subject matter at issue in these cases has been wide-ranging, i.e., from financial services (Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010); Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)); to diagnostic tests (Mayo Collab. Services v. Prometheus Labs, 55 U.S. ___ (2012)); to genes (Ass’n for Molec. Pathol. v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. __ (2013)).
Section 101 defines patentable subject matter as “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980), the Supreme Court held that it is to be interpreted broadly since Congress intended statutory subject matter under Section 101 “to include anything under the sun that is made by man.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
