New stab at defining patentability

Full Federal Circuit to revisit vexing question.

, The National Law Journal

   |2 Comments

One of the most common complaints about the U.S. patent system is that inventors are claiming ownership of basic, widely understood ideas. No doubt aware of these criticisms, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to revisit its definition of patent-eligible subject matter in an upcoming case.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Fred Furrer

    I think that there is confusion between what is a "patentable idea" and what is a "trade secret". Too many ideas that should be considered as trade secrets, and therefore protected entirely -- and only -- by the cloak of confidentiality by the developer, are given patents, which results in a "license to litigate" and therefore creates a mess. The court needs to limit what can be patented to discrete, novel products, and the rest is just trade secrets.

  • Fred Furrer

    I think that there is confusion between what is a "patentable idea" and what is a "trade secret". Too many ideas that should be considered as trade secrets, and therefore protected entirely -- and only -- by the cloak of confidentiality by the developer, are given patents, which results in a "license to litigate" and therefore creates a mess. The court needs to limit what can be patented to discrete, novel products, and the rest is just trade secrets.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202586731952

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.