Expanding the Patent Eligibility of Diagnostic Tests and Their Methods
Jo-an Chen There is ongoing debate over whether diagnostic tests and their methods should be patent eligible. As it stands today, these tests are largely unpatentable given the restrictive interpretation of patent eligibility laws in the United States. Some argue that patent claims directed to observing a law of nature, such as diagnostic tests, should remain patent ineligible to prevent an inventor from monopolizing basic tools of science. Others argue that diagnostic tests should be patent eligible to incentivize and encourage similar types of socially beneficial discoveries and inventions. This Essay agrees with the policy rationale for expanding the patent...
A Welcome Limit on Design Patent Protection: Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions
Casey Houlton In 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of design patent law in Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions. The court held that a design patent must be limited to a particular article of manufacture. As such, claim language may be used to limit the scope of a design patent to a particular article of manufacture if an article is not specified in the claim’s figures. Although the court’s failure to define an article of manufacture may result in some difficulties with Curver’s application, the court’s decision is consistent with the...
Proveris v. Innovasystems: Redefining a Patented Invention Under § 271(E)(1): An Examination of the Federal Circuit’s Narrowing of the § 271(e)(1) “Safe Harbor” Exemption
Duane C. Marks By reducing the scope of “patented inventions” within § 271(e)(1) to only inventions comporting with the “perfect product fit” analysis, Proveris has drastically altered the function of § 271(e)(1) and potentially impairs the ability of generic manufactures to fully utilize the ANDA process created in Title I of the Act. Adherence to Proveris’ “perfect product fit” rule risks establishing loopholes that potentially allows patent holders of pioneer drugs and medical devices to delay generic manufacturers from bringing less expensive generics to the market. This Note critiques the Federal Circuit’s recent narrowing of § 271(e)(1) in Proveris. Part...