Is 101 Relief in Sight?

17 April 2019 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog
Author(s): Antoinette F. Konski

Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) released a plan to revise Section 101 of Title 35 of the U.S. Code relating to U.S. patent law, reports Alexis Kramer of Bloomberg Law. As reported by Ms. Kramer, the senators (the chairman and a ranking member respectively of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property) have been meeting with industry representatives since December of 2018 to discuss how to redefine patent-eligible subject matter under U.S. patent law.

A draft outline of the proposed 101 reform also was published by Bloomberg Law. The most notable proposed change is to eliminate that any invention be both “new” and “useful.” Rather, the new law would only require that the claimed invention meet existing statutory utility requirements. The new law also would statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter in favor of exclusive categories of ineligible subject matter. Proposed excluded categories include:

  • Fundamental scientific principles;
  • Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature;
  • Pure mathematical formulas;
  • Economic or commercial principles;
  • Mental activities.

A practical application test would be implemented to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter be narrowly construed. In addition, the law would make clear that the claim as a whole would be considered to determine patent-eligibility and without regard to statutory categories of novelty, nonobviousness, enablement, and written description.

Ms. Kramer also reported that Representatives Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Hank Johnson (D.-Ga), and Steve Strivers (R-Ohio) introduced a companion framework in the House.

A Careful, Cautious Watch

Of course, the life science industry and much of the patent bar has been looking for congressional intervention in light of growing number of and somewhat inconsistent judicial decisions regarding the eligibility of claims that use or apply a judicially created exception to patentable subject matter (products or laws of nature and mental processes). Of note is that under the proposed framework, medical diagnostics do not appear to be within an excluded category, and thus companion and other medical diagnostic methods may again be patent-eligible, provided they are not categorized as ineligible “fundamental scientific principles.”

Surely, the proposed framework is a step in the right direction, with the caveat that the language of any new statute be inclusive and flexible, to allow for the commercialization of inventions that are beyond our current scope of imagination.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services