The article examines the divergent standards for patentable subject matter in the U.S., UK, and European Patent Office (EPO). It highlights how in the U.S., abstract ideas and natural phenomena are excluded from patentability according to the Alice Framework, with courts defining these boundaries. In contrast, the UK does not consider abstraction when evaluating patent claims. Lord Justice Jacob's statement emphasizes the complexity and significance of defining patentable subject matter, with potentially enormous financial implications depending on the approach taken by different jurisdictions.
While 'abstract ideas' are not patentable in the United States, the UK does not consider abstraction relevant when considering patentable subject matter.
Lord Justice Jacob noted the temptation to treat patent-eligible subject matter like an elephant: 'you know it when you see it, but you can't describe it in words.'
The U.S. Supreme Court's long held view that 35 U.S.C. § 101 contains an important implicit set of exceptions: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.
The article attempts to grapple with questions about real differences in what constitutes patentable subject matter across the U.S., UK, and EPO.
Collection
[
|
...
]