Overview
Title
To amend title 35, United States Code, to address matters relating to patent subject matter eligibility, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9474 is a plan to make it easier to understand what kinds of inventions can be given special protection called a patent. It says inventions should be protected if they are useful, like machines or new materials, but not if they're just ideas or things that naturally exist, like human genes.
Summary AI
H.R. 9474, known as the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2024,” aims to amend title 35 of the United States Code regarding what types of inventions can be patented. This bill proposes the elimination of judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, meaning that any invention or discovery that can be claimed as a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter is eligible for patent protection, except for specific exclusions such as unmodified human genes and natural materials. It also clarifies that economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic processes alone cannot be patented unless they require the use of a machine. The intent is to provide clearer guidelines and reduce confusion over what can be patented.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2024,” aims to amend title 35 of the United States Code, which governs patents. The bill seeks to clarify and modify the laws related to what can be patented in the United States. Its main objective is to eliminate the judicial exceptions that previously made many inventions ineligible for patents. The bill proposes that any invention or discovery that is a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter should be patentable. However, it also outlines specific exclusions, such as mathematical formulas not part of a larger invention, mental processes performed solely in the human mind, and natural materials or human genes that are unmodified.
Summary of Significant Issues
A key issue with the bill is the complexity and potential ambiguity in its language. Many terms, such as "mathematical formula," "mental process," and "unmodified human gene," are not clearly defined, which may lead to disputes or varied interpretations. Additionally, the bill's exclusion of processes related to economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic endeavors lacks precise definitions, posing the risk of restricting innovation and causing confusion about what constitutes patentable subject matter.
The bill also introduces the idea of "doing it on a computer" as a means to potentially bypass certain exclusions. However, this could lead to exploitation of the language in ways that might undermine the intent to limit patentability of non-eligible processes. Another area of concern is the complexity and legal jargon throughout the bill, which could limit its accessibility to the general public and even some patent practitioners.
Potential Public Impact
If enacted, this bill could significantly impact innovation and the patent landscape in the United States. By removing judicial exceptions, it might simplify the path to obtaining patents for inventors, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. However, the ambiguity in defining what is patentable may result in legal uncertainty, potentially leading to an increase in litigation as parties seek to interpret the new rules.
For the general public, these changes could either foster or hinder access to new technologies, as companies may either innovate more readily with new protections or face hurdles due to unclear legal standards. The confusion around what is patentable might delay the release of new inventions if disputes arise over eligibility.
Impact on Stakeholders
Inventors and Patent Holders: For inventors, the bill's intention to broaden patent eligibility could be beneficial, as it offers the possibility of protecting a wider array of inventions. However, the lack of clarity may lead to uncertainty about the scope of patent protection, which could deter innovation if inventors fear costly legal battles.
Judicial System and Practitioners: The legal profession and the judiciary might face challenges and increased burdens due to the potential for ambiguous interpretations and inconsistency in judicial decisions related to patent eligibility. This could result in a heavier caseload for courts as disputes over interpretations arise.
Businesses and Innovators: Businesses, particularly those in tech and biotech industries, could benefit from clearer and broader patent protections if the ambiguities are resolved. However, they might also face new challenges if competitors exploit the lack of clarity to patent ideas that should remain beyond the realm of patent protection.
General Public: Ultimately, consumers may experience either faster access to new technologies and products or delayed advancements if legal disputes slow down innovation. Moreover, the potential for increased patenting of business-related processes might have unforeseen effects on market dynamics and competition.
The bill's intention to simplify and improve the patent landscape is clear, yet without additional clarity, its impact may be mixed, benefiting some stakeholders while posing challenges and uncertainties to others.
Issues
The language around patent eligibility and exclusions, particularly in SECTION 3 and 101, might be too ambiguous, raising concerns about legal certainty and consistency across cases and industries. Terms like 'considering the claimed invention as a whole' in section 101(c) could lead to varied interpretation, which is critical for inventors and businesses seeking patent protection.
Ambiguity in defining terms such as 'mathematical formula', 'mental process', and 'unmodified human gene' in SECTION 3 and 101(b) may lead to disputes or misinterpretations. Clearer guidelines would be necessary to prevent legal uncertainties and potential conflicts within the judiciary.
The exclusion of 'processes that are substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic' under SECTION 3 and 101(b)(1)(B)(i) without precise definitions could restrict innovation and create confusion over what constitutes patentable subject matter.
Concerns over the definition of 'useful' in SECTION 3 and 100(k) suggest that it might need to be clearer to ensure it is understood consistently across various fields. This could affect the determination of what inventions qualify for patents, having broader implications for innovation.
Introduction of 'do it on a computer' as a potential tactic to bypass exclusions in SECTION 2 and 5E(i) raises issues about the potential for exploitation of the language to patent otherwise non-eligible processes, limiting fair competition.
The lack of guidance on 'limited discovery' in court procedures related to patent eligibility determination as per SECTION 3 and 101(c)(2)(B) might lead to inconsistent legal practices and outcomes, affecting the efficiency and fairness of legal processes around patent eligibility disputes.
Overall complexity and legal jargon throughout the bill might make it less accessible to the general public and even some patent practitioners, as noted in SECTION 2. Simplification of language could improve transparency and understanding, fostering better compliance and less confusion.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be called the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2024.”
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress identifies the need to change and clarify patent laws, specifically section 101 of title 35, due to past judicial exceptions that made many inventions non-eligible for patents. The new law removes these exceptions, allowing patents for any useful inventions or improvements, except for certain things like unmodified natural materials, mental processes done solely in the human mind, and primarily business-related processes, unless they require a machine to perform.
3. Patent eligibility Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendments to Chapter 10 of title 35 of the United States Code redefine what can be patented. It expands the definition of "useful" inventions and specifies exclusions, like mathematical formulas and mental processes, that can't be patented unless they meet certain conditions involving modification or practical use.
101. Patent eligibility Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Anyone who invents a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter may get a patent, but there are exceptions, such as mathematical formulas or processes that are economic or purely mental unless they require machines. Natural materials or genes can't be patented unless they're modified or used in a useful invention. To decide if something can be patented, it should be looked at as a whole without considering how it was made or if parts are known or common. Courts can decide on patent eligibility during infringement cases, and limited discovery might be allowed.