The article discusses the challenges posed by the Alice decision regarding patent eligibility, particularly the vagueness surrounding the term "abstract ideas." The two-step inquiry established by the 2014 Alice case is critiqued for its subjectivity and for lacking a clear definition of what constitutes an abstract idea. Justice Thomas's dismissal of the need for definition is highlighted as problematic, creating uncertainty among stakeholders in the patent system. The piece emphasizes the importance of clarity in order for courts to apply the law consistently and effectively.
The courts are doing the right thing by sending Alice Step Two to the jury and instructing them to apply the clear and convincing evidentiary burden.
The Supreme Court's decision to find a patent ineligible because it claimed an 'abstract idea' without bothering to define that term has had disastrous consequences.
It's no secret that the patent eligibility inquiry under Alice is infamous for its subjectivity and unpredictability, which is what happens when courts refuse to provide clarity.
The phrase 'abstract ideas' is a definitional morass ... There is no single, succinct, usable definition anywhere available.
Collection
[
|
...
]