Draft Text of Proposed New Section 101 Reflects Patent Owner Input
By Eileen McDermott
May 22, 2019
“ The Supreme Court should never have created its own exceptions to U.S. patent laws. It has taken far too long for Congress to finally correct these errors, but this draft bill would finally strengthen our patent system.” – Russell Slifer
A group of Senators and Representatives has just released the draft text of a bipartisan, bicameral proposal to reform Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property; Representative Doug Collins (R-GA-9), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson (D-GA-4), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Courts; and Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) sent the draft text via press release today. The stated goal of releasing the draft is to solicit feedback—there will be additional stakeholder feedback and Senate hearings, according to the press release.
Senate hearings on the topic will be held on June 4, 5 and 11 featuring three panels of five witnesses each, for a total of 45 witnesses over three days.
Key Changes
The draft text explicitly states that “the provisions of section 101 shall be construed in favor of eligibility.” It also includes the following provision:
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.
The bill would also add a subsection (k) to Section 100 defining “useful” as “any invention or discovery that provides specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention” and would replace subsection (f) of Section 112 with the following:
(f) Functional Claim Elements — An element in a claim expressed as a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/05/22/draft-t...id=109498/
By Eileen McDermott
May 22, 2019
“ The Supreme Court should never have created its own exceptions to U.S. patent laws. It has taken far too long for Congress to finally correct these errors, but this draft bill would finally strengthen our patent system.” – Russell Slifer
A group of Senators and Representatives has just released the draft text of a bipartisan, bicameral proposal to reform Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property; Representative Doug Collins (R-GA-9), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee; Hank Johnson (D-GA-4), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and the Courts; and Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) sent the draft text via press release today. The stated goal of releasing the draft is to solicit feedback—there will be additional stakeholder feedback and Senate hearings, according to the press release.
Senate hearings on the topic will be held on June 4, 5 and 11 featuring three panels of five witnesses each, for a total of 45 witnesses over three days.
Key Changes
The draft text explicitly states that “the provisions of section 101 shall be construed in favor of eligibility.” It also includes the following provision:
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.
The bill would also add a subsection (k) to Section 100 defining “useful” as “any invention or discovery that provides specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention” and would replace subsection (f) of Section 112 with the following:
(f) Functional Claim Elements — An element in a claim expressed as a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/05/22/draft-t...id=109498/
