Here's a fresh analysis of patent eligibility law. See IP Watchdog: Sherry Knowles Scrutinizes an Activist Supreme Court and its Unconstitutional Approach to Patent Eligibility for an interesting interview and article.
From the abstract of the article: "A or B” is inconsistent with “A not B.” This describes why the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the
U.S. Supreme Court is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, and thus unconstitutional. This
article tracks the legislative history of patent eligibility from 1790 to 2011, and the parallel but
inconsistent U.S. Supreme Court case law during this period. In following its own case law, the
Court has shown extraordinary judicial activism, has penciled out two words of the federal statute
(“or discovers”), and has penciled a word out of the U.S. Constitution (“discoveries”)."
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
