Filewrapper®

Federal Circuit Judge Calls for a Fix to the “Abstract Idea” Mess: Part 2

July 25, 2018
Post by Kirk M. Hartung

Last week, I began a blog series on the "Abstract Idea" and hope you will continue to follow this critical topic. The previous post from last week can be found here

The concerns regarding the current state of the law regarding patent eligibility raised by Judge Plager in his recent dissent in the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Interval Licensing (see previous blog post on this subject) are not new or limited to a small group of patent lawyers, owners, or judges.

Judges and lawyers have a shared belief in the uselessness of the abstract notion of “abstract ideas” as a criterion for patent eligibility. Judge Plager suggests that the current statutory criteria for patent validity set forth in the Patent Act eliminates the need for the abstract doctrine. The “abstract ideas” doctrine has proved unworkable and adds nothing to ensuring patent quality that the statutory requirements do not already provide.

Judge Plager acknowledges that there is no particular incentive for the Supreme Court to immerse itself in this incoherent doctrine that has taken on a life of its own, such that it will take special effort by judges and the patent bar to get the Court’s attention. Otherwise, perhaps Congress can provide a fixed, “though waiting for that may be the ultimate test of patience.”

Judge Plager offered another option for trial courts who are faced with the section 101 abstract idea defense, and the inherent difficulties it creates for the courts. Rather than addressing this issue first, as is often done now, the courts could defer this until after addressing the other statutory requirements for a patent under sections 102, 103 and 112. The two-part Alice abstract idea test for patent eligibility would remain in the case, but only be considered if the patent survives the other validity challenges.

In conclusion, Judge Plager states that the legitimate expectations of the innovation community, as well as basic notions of fairness in due process, compel us to address this §101 conundrum.

Kirk M. Hartung is a Patent Attorney in the Mechanical and Electrical Patent Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Kirk directly via email at kirk.hartung@ipmvs.com.




Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Enter your name and email address to receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Vorhees & Sease, P.L.C.