Patent Eligibility: Has the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Struck the Right Balance?*

Patent Eligibility: Has the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Struck the Right Balance?*

View Session Speakers

This panel comes at the suggestion of Joe Matal, who commented on an article authored by Russ Slifer posted to LinkedIn. Joe’s comment initiated a conversation on LinkedIn between Adam Mossoff, Nick Matich, Gene Quinn and Russ Slifer. At Joe’s suggestion, IPWatchdog is pleased to host this discussion in person. Due to the unavailability of Russ, Drew Hirshfeld will take his place in the conversation.

The premise initially posed by Matal: It is not anti-patent or anti-capitalist for the Supreme Court to apply historical limitations on patent eligibility. Further, Matal would say that Federal Circuit judges are merely following the well-established patent eligibility precedent announced by the Supreme Court.

Obviously, there was great disagreement, not the least of which was owed to the fact that Supreme Court eligibility jurisprudence is irreconcilable, and that the Court changed the law in Mayo by requiring novelty to be considered as part of the 101 inquiry (which was prohibited by Diehr) and also changed the law in Myrias when the Court said discoveries are not patent eligible, despite the statute and Constitution saying otherwise.

So, we bring this energetic discussion about patent eligibility to the real world.

Materials

Tillis’ Promised Patent Eligibility Bill Would Overrule Myriad, Mayo

Presenting the Evidence for Patent Eligibility Reform

Case Studies and Litigation Data Highlight Additional Evidence of Harm