![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayne"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.'"
This is a good thing, but it probably doesn't automatically 'un-grant' such existing types of patents. But with SCOTUS saying no, challenging them and getting them cancelled should be easier and less expensive.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/21/1647234/supreme-court-limits-patents-based-on-laws-of-nature
This is a good thing, but it probably doesn't automatically 'un-grant' such existing types of patents. But with SCOTUS saying no, challenging them and getting them cancelled should be easier and less expensive.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/21/1647234/supreme-court-limits-patents-based-on-laws-of-nature
