Filed August 26, 2009
See Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130: The qualities of these bacteria like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.
Filed March 10, 2014
This argument is reminiscent of those made by the patent holder in Funk Bros. 333 U.S. at 131. The claimed invention there was a culture of naturally occurring bacterium which, when mixed, had beneficial effects.
Filed March 10, 2014
This argument is reminiscent of those made by the patent holder in Funk Bros. 333 U.S. at 131. The claimed invention there was a culture of naturally occurring bacterium which, when mixed, had beneficial effects.
Filed August 16, 2013
Thus, “[h]e who discovers a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes.” Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130. Relying upon this rule, the Supreme Court has for many years found patents invalid that cover the discovery of a natural phenomenon.
Filed January 29, 2010
Moreover, that quotation, which originated in an 1887 Supreme Court case dealing with the tariff definition of article of manufacture (Hartranft v. Wiegmann, 121 U.S. 609, 615 (1887)), was certainly not a proclamation of a new definition for “compositions of matter” under Section 101, and Chakrabarty never even mentioned Parke-Davis. Moreover, plaintiffs’ new “markedly different” test seizes on the language quoted above that the Supreme Court in Chakrabarty used to describe how the applicant’s bacterium was “new” within the meaning of Section 101 as compared to the culture held unpatentable in Funk Bros., 333 U.S. 127; Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 310. The Court was not imposing any “new” requirement for patent-eligibility beyond the “new” requirement of the statute.
Filed January 9, 2017
That argument fails as a matter of law, because claims directed to nature-based products must be “markedly different” than their naturally-occurring counterpart—not simply “distinct” or “different”—to be patent eligible. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 310 (1980); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116-18 (2013) (“Myriad”); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948); see also In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
Filed August 31, 2015
Abstract ideas “are ‘part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602 (quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Filed November 3, 2014
Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)); see Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. Earlier this year the Supreme Court reiterated the prohibition against patenting abstract business concepts, such as filling outpatient medical prescriptions.
Filed August 4, 2014
Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)); see Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. Most recently, in Alice Corporation Pty., Ltd. v CLS Bank International, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court reiterated the prohibition against patenting such abstract business concepts.
Filed July 7, 2014
Such fundamental truths are “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225 (quoting Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301. The abstract ideas category “embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.”