What Can Be Patented and What Can’t Be Patented?
Some examples of what can be a’real’ ‘invention’ are: Personalized medicine dosing process, Perpetual motion machines, Integrated circuits, and abstract ideas. While some of these are patentable, others cannot. For example, it is impossible to patent the law of gravity, or a physical phenomenon such as fire. Nevertheless, some people have tried.
Perpetual motion machines
While some inventions may be patentable, perpetual motion machines are not. While patents prove that an invention is original and is not obvious, they do not provide proof of how the device actually functions. Some of the most amazing mechanisms have been patented, but have subsequently failed to function. Moreover, US patent law does not recognize perpetual motion machines as a useful invention, due to its minimum applicability requirements. Thus, there is no legal basis for patenting perpetual motion machines.
Several courts have rejected patent applications for perpetual motion machines, citing an insufficiency of the invention. The failure to satisfy the requirements of Art. 83 of the Patent Code was irreparable, since the invention is incompatible with the laws of nature. The case of Joseph Newman is a prime example of this. This inventor developed a theory relating to electromagnetism and gyroscopes. However, his patent was rejected because the principle violated the laws of nature. As a result, he filed appeals and even sued the Commissioner of Patents. The patent examiner subsequently admitted that his invention did not comply with the requirements of Article 83.
While perpetual motion machines are not a useful invention, they are aesthetically pleasing. In fact, the failure of perpetual motion machines to produce useful output is not the only factor that makes them unpatentable. Despite their failure to function, they would still qualify as aesthetic creations, which is why the invention of perpetual motion machines has remained an intriguing one for inventors. For more information, visit Patentopedia. The article explains how patenting perpetual motion machines is an essential step towards making them useful.
Personalized medicine dosing process
A recent Supreme Court decision could have a profound impact on the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. The Court ruled unanimously that applications of the law of nature are not patentable. While this ruling is good news for pharmaceutical companies, some patent attorneys say it could cripple the biotech and pharma industries. The ruling also overturns many lower court rulings recognizing that certain processes can be patented. However, the Prometheus case was a stepping stone to the decision.
While there are many factors to consider when applying for a patent, the most valuable personalized medicine will include a step that addresses the specific disease or condition to be treated. This step will be incredibly specific, including the drug or doses used. The treatment step is critical, as this will overcome any limitations of current patent law. It is also likely to be narrow enough to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the European Patent Office.
While many critics of medical treatment patents advocate for a ban, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has consistently held that treatment of a disease is not a mental process or natural law. So it is highly unlikely that a personalized medicine dosing process can be patented, no matter how sophisticated it is. So, while it may be possible to secure a patent, a company should consider keeping the process a trade secret and exploring markets outside of the United States.
A preferred embodiment of the invention includes software that conducts the conventional record keeping functions to calculate the appropriate dosage and monitor responses of a medication. The software maintains data for each patient based on pharmacogenetics and other personal attributes. The algorithm includes a series of recommended doses for a particular patient at any given point in drug therapy. It is important to note that the invention is not limited to these two medications, but rather extends to all types of pharmaceuticals.
An integrated circuit is a device that contains a series of electronic components and a substrate. These devices are often designed in three-dimensions and have layers and topographies. These topographies may be registered, providing protection against copying. Patents may protect an integrated circuit or a combination of layers. However, a registered topography cannot protect an entire device. A patented integrated circuit is not necessarily unique, and the design of the circuit may be copied by others.
Integrated circuits are made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of semiconductor devices. If you could attempt to patent an integrated circuit, a patent claim would be hundreds of pages long. Even if a patent claim was very narrow, the protection would be limited to the components of the circuit. Because of this, writing a patent application for an integrated circuit would be expensive, time-consuming, and complex. Moreover, the entire process of patenting an integrated circuit can take several years.
Depending on the country, there are different kinds of intellectual property laws that protect semiconductors. Industrial design is another form of intellectual property, but it is not enough. The layout design is more functional than ornamental. Therefore, patenting an integrated circuit layout design requires a more comprehensive protection. Trade secret law is not sufficient to protect a semiconductor chip from copying. Further, it does not allow the manufacturer to copy the design of the chip itself.
Another example of an integrated circuit is a semiconductor. These circuits contain a set of transistors and other electronic circuitry elements. Essentially, the layout-design of a semiconductor integrated circuit can be any way. It can be made to look like a traditional circuit, or it can be a completely new and uncopyable design. Its commercial exploitation involves selling the semiconductor and the layout-design to a third party.
There are many questions about whether abstract ideas are patentable, and the USPTO’s patent examiners are not equipped to answer them. Until recently, patent examiners had no definitive standard for determining whether a new idea is patentable. However, recent cases have given patent examiners more specific criteria for determining whether an idea is patentable. The new guidelines clarify what is and isn’t patentable, and they should help to increase trust in the patent system.
One case that was decided this year is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. In this case, the court found that the claims in Alice did not make meaningful distinctions under 35 U.S.C. SS 101. In a second case, Bilski v. Kappos, a judge found that “abstract ideas” were not patentable in this case. The Federal Circuit ruled that the district court was wrong to limit the patenting of abstract ideas – a broader standard than was imposed in Alice.
However, this precedent has been argued before in a case involving Yu. Under this precedent, a new device would have been deemed patentable. A separate claim would have been filed for the concept of taking two pictures and enhancing one. Clearly, this isn’t a new idea and therefore not patentable. It’s not clear what the Supreme Court will do. And as it turns out, the Yu patent would have been a valid invention under the ‘abstract idea’ exception.
Another important distinction to make is the difference between an abstract idea and a specific product. While a product could be patented, an abstract idea cannot be patented if it is based on a mental process. However, this is not always the case. The Federal Circuit determined that a computer-implemented system to analyze and rate loan packages isn’t an abstract idea. It also held that abstract ideas cannot be patented if they are implemented in a physical device.
Laws of nature
In many instances, the patentable portion of a work will be limited to new inventions. Patent laws also limit what can be patented to methods and materials that do not have prior art or do not meet the patentability requirements. For example, a new method for treating a disease could not be patented if it is based on a mathematical formula. A mathematical formula does not qualify for a patent unless it contains some other inventive concept.
Generally, patents cannot cover things that exist in nature. This means that laws of physics and chemistry do not allow patents. Additionally, laws of nature don’t permit the creation of new machines or processes, and natural phenomena can’t be patented. But patents can be granted to those who have created new uses for an existing phenomenon. Nevertheless, patents can’t be granted for discoveries that are not new, like Einstein’s E=MC2 formula.