Courts have shown in the past they are not trustworthy of patent eligibility cases

The patent system, as outlined in the Constitution, is intended to promote the “useful arts.” There is no question that what was done by the patentees in this case was useful. Yet the court still denied them patent protection because the claimed subject matter did not pass a test that was developed by the courts.

We want to encourage research in just these types of diagnostic methods and personalized medicines, as well as in the field of computer-implemented inventions which have also had troubles meeting the new requirements. These emerging technologies are the very areas where the United States has been leading the world and these technologies are driving economic growth and job creation.

The courts’ focus on subject matter eligibility as a mechanism to deny patents for these inventions will drive investment into research in these technologies to other areas. We will lose our edge in the world and many further valuable contributions to science will not come to fruition.

If the concern is that the inventions would be obvious or are not enabled or are not fully within the grasp of the inventor, there are other sections of the statute that could be used to deny an applicant a patent. But to deny patentability for a patent to an invention that is so clearly useful to so many people does not fulfill the requirement of the Constitution to promote the useful arts.

If the courts are unwilling to listen to the scientists and the patent community as to the effects these positions have on innovation, perhaps it is time to engage the legislators and the White House to clarify the law to ensure that we continue to promote the useful sciences.