Today, U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ranking Member and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Representatives Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) released a bipartisan, bicameral framework on Section 101 patent reform.
The framework comes just months after Senators Coons and Tillis revived the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Since then, Senators Coons and Tillis have worked with Representatives Collins, Johnson, and Stivers and interested stakeholders on how to best reform Section 101 of the Patent Act. The months of hard work by the Senators and Representatives has led to this bipartisan, bicameral framework.
"Today, U.S. patent law discourages innovation in some of the most critical areas of technology, including artificial intelligence, medical diagnostics, and personalized medicine," said Senator Coons. "That's why Senator Tillis and I launched this effort to improve U.S. patent law based on input from those impacted most. I am grateful for the engagement of all stakeholders participating in our roundtables, as well as the bipartisan and collaborative efforts of colleagues in both the Senate and the House. I look forward to continuing to receive feedback as we craft a legislative solution that encourages innovation."
"Senator Coons and I requested to re-instate the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on IP because we saw a need to reform our nation's complicated patent process, starting with section 101," said Senator Tillis. "The release of this framework comes after multiple roundtables and extensive discussions with stakeholders who would be affected by reforming Section 101. Senator Coons and I look forward to receiving feedback from the release of this framework and encourage anyone who might potentially be affected to contact our office and offer us input."
"Upgrading the patent eligibility test is critical if we want American innovation to continue to lead worldwide," said Rep. Collins. "Encouraging innovation in Georgia and throughout our country means restoring confidence for inventors and investors that their patent rights will be upheld in court."
"I'm pleased to participate in this important and relevant roundtable. Many have voiced concerns about uncertainties in in this area of patent law jurisprudence, and I'm interested in hearing from all stakeholders as we continue to work towards a consensus solution," said Congressman Hank Johnson, who serves as Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, IP and the Internet. "I particularly look forward to--and welcome--feedback on the outline proposal we're considering here today."
"In my home state of Ohio, leaders in the fields of biologics research and diagnostics will deliver the cures of tomorrow. This is only possible if we can protect those innovations with the patent protection that rewards the risks and investment necessary to discover the next great idea," said Rep. Stivers. "We have the opportunity to advance our society in so many exciting and unknown ways, and we need to ensure we have a patent system that encourages that kind of game-changing innovation, instead of stifling it."
The framework released by Coons, Tillis, Collins, Johnson, and Stivers would:
Keep existing statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof.
Eliminate, within the eligibility requirement, that any invention or discovery be both "new and useful." Instead, simply require that the invention meet existing statutory utility requirements.
Define, in a closed list, exclusive categories of statutory subject matter which alone should not be eligible for patent protection. The sole list of exclusions might include the following categories, for example:
Fundamental scientific principles;
Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature;
Pure mathematical formulas;
Economic or commercial principles;
Create a "practical application" test to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter is construed narrowly.
Ensure that simply reciting generic technical language or generic functional language does not salvage an otherwise ineligible claim.
Statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent eligible subject matter in favor of exclusive statutory categories of ineligible subject matter.
Make clear that eligibility is determined by considering each and every element of the claim as a whole and without regard to considerations properly addressed by 102, 103 and 112.