Over the past six years, since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories, it has become more and more evident that correction of the path embarked upon by the USPTO, the district courts, and the Federal Circuit could only occur if Congress changed the law of patent subject matter eligibility. Recently Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member, have been holding meetings with stakeholders in an attempt to craft such revisions in a way that would garner sufficient political consensus for passage (what would happen if it crossed President Trump's desk is anyone's guess, but one challenge at a time).
Today these Senators, joined by Representative Doug Collins (R-GA-9), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representatives Hank Johnson (D-GA-4), and Steve Stivers (R-OH-15), released a "bipartisan, bicameral framework on Section 101 patent reform." The need is acute, according to Chairman Coons:
Today, U.S. patent law discourages innovation in some of the most critical areas of technology, including artificial intelligence, medical diagnostics, and personalized medicine. That's why Senator Tillis and I launched this effort to improve U.S. patent law based on input from those impacted most. I am grateful for the engagement of all stakeholders participating in our roundtables, as well as the bipartisan and collaborative efforts of colleagues in both the Senate and the House. I look forward to continuing to receive feedback as we craft a legislative solution that encourages innovation.
The framework has the following provisions:
• Keep existing statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof.
• Eliminate, within the eligibility requirement, that any invention or discovery be both "new and useful." Instead, simply require that the invention meet existing statutory utility requirements.
• Define, in a closed list, exclusive categories of statutory subject matter which alone should not be eligible for patent protection. The sole list of exclusions might include the following categories, for example:
▪ Fundamental scientific principles;
▪ Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature;
▪ Pure mathematical formulas;
▪ Economic or commercial principles;
▪ Mental activities.
• Create a "practical application" test to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter is construed narrowly.
• Ensure that simply reciting generic technical language or generic functional language does not salvage an otherwise ineligible claim.
• Statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent eligible subject matter in favor of exclusive statutory categories of ineligible subject matter.
• Make clear that eligibility is determined by considering each and every element of the claim as a whole and without regard to considerations properly addressed by 102, 103 and 112.
While a "work in progress," the framework contains several of the provisions proposed by IPLAC, AIPLA, IPO, and the ABA-IPL section. But this proposal provides for frank abrogation of the judicial exceptions, a stratagem within Congress's purview but perhaps one not particularly well advised. The judicial exceptions (occasional effects not to the contrary) are not judicial whims: the Court firmly believes that they are necessary to prevent Congress from exceeding its Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 8. This is consistent with their role in our system of government, and at best the consequence of any such abrogation will be that it is ignored in practice, and at worst it could motivate the Court to recite even more stringent and strictly applied limitations on Congress's power to grant patents. The Court's forays into patent policy making have been unfortunate to say the least; anything that encourages these tendencies is unlikely to end well for U.S. innovation. Instead, it may be more productive to recognize, if not acknowledge, the basis for the judicial exceptions and try to introduce into the patent statute more circumscribed, exact, and defined recitations of these principles in ways that might cabin the Court's application to a greater extent that is possible under current law.