Patent law is determined by Congress---courts will defer to legislation passed by congress

Thus, Congress has broad power to select the policy that in its view best promotes the progress of the useful arts, and to set forth statutory conditions and requirements for patentability consistent with its view of the best policy. Given this broad power given to Congress under the Constitution to fashion the conditions and requirements of patentability, the Supreme Court would likely defer to Congress and find legislation clarifying, and perhaps even eliminating, the non-statutory exceptions to be constitutional. Indeed, in Kimble the Court repeatedly highlighted that it is the role of Congress to correct the Supreme Court's mistakes in statutory interpretation and determination of patent policy.' 7 While the Court ultimately decided not to reverse its precedent related to patent misuse law based on the doctrine of stare decisis, in this context the Court explained why Congress has the power to overturn the Court's precedent.78 Thus, the Court's reasoning in Kimble is highly relevant to any challenge to an amendment to the patent statute to overturn the Court's precedent interpreting the patent statute. So, what was the Court's reasoning? The Court explained that, "[b]y contrast with the Sherman Act, the patent laws do not turn over exceptional law-shaping authority to the courts." 79 It went on to say that "[cilaims that a statutory precedent has 'serious and harmful consequences' for innovation are (to repeat this opinion's refrain) 'more appropriately addressed to Congress."'80 In more detail, it explained: That branch, far more than this one, has the capacity to assess Kimble's charge that Brulotte suppresses technological progress. And if it concludes that Brulotte works such harm, Congress has the prerogative to determine the exact right response - choosing the policy fix, among many conceivable ones, that will optimally serve the public interest.81 By simultaneously adhering to its precedent and deferring to Congress, the Court claimed it would "promote the rule-of-law values to which courts must attend while leaving matters of public policy to Congress." 82 And, finally, in the end the Court conclusively stated that "the choice of what patent policy should be lies first and foremost with Congress."83