It’s a direct response to the CP

The first of these is to focus on a narrow solution that is targeted specifically and exclusively at any areas of technology for which the current jurisprudence has created significant and empirically demonstrable impediments to obtaining patent protection to the extent that such impediments can be shown to have resulted in clearly insufficient levels of R&D investment. Ideally, the solution to such a problem would be to create a new form of sui generis intellectual property that would be available only for innovations in the identified fields of technology, thereby minimizing the risk of harming existing incentives or imposing substantial unnecessary costs or business uncertainty with respect to areas of technology that cannot be shown to have been harmed by the current jurisprudence. As noted above, the relevant data from the ten-plus years since the principal Supreme Court decisions at issue in this debate suggest that there are no widespread problems. But, to the extent that it can be shown that these decisions created gaps in protection for narrow classes of technology, a targeted, sui generis solution should be adequate to fill them and restore appropriate incentives to innovate while minimizing the risk to the interests of most stakeholders as well as the risk of negative unintended consequences more generally. Importantly, this type of sui generis protection could be modeled after patent protection, with the main difference being that subject matter eligibility would extend only to the specific, narrowly-defined categories shown to have been harmed. Such a targeted solution could provide intellectual property rights that would be equivalent to patent protection without creating unnecessary challenges with respect to the broader areas of technology for which current eligibility law appears to be working well.