Supreme Court Limits Patents Based On Laws of Nature

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @05:10AM from the there-goes-my-falling-off-a-bridge-patent dept.

New submitter sed quid in infernos writes "The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion yesterday holding that 'to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it."' The Court invalidated a patent on the process of adjusting medication dosage based on the levels of specific metabolites in the patient's blood. The opinion sets forth a process for determining patent eligibility for patent claims that include a law of nature. The court wrote that the "additional features" that show an application of the law must "provide practical assurance that the [claimed] process is more than a drafting effort." This language suggests that the burden will be on the patentee to prove that its limitations are more than patent attorney tricks.'"

2 of 173 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Patent by SJHillman · 2012-03-21 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

So I can't patent my method of not falling off the Earth through application of gravity?
Re:nothing and everything's a law of nature by dtmos · 2012-03-21 06:42 · Score: 4, Funny

This is why all notions of property are arbitrary.
Could you give me my wallet, there in your pocket?