Patent Law: Exemptions And Exclusions In The System

Patent law is a complex and dynamic field that plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and protecting inventors' rights. While it grants exclusive rights to inventors, there are certain limitations and exclusions to its scope. Patent law does not apply to ideas that fall under abstract ideas, laws of nature, or physical phenomena. Additionally, it is important to note that patent laws vary across different countries and regions, and the specific exclusions may differ accordingly. In this context, let's delve into the topic of What does patent law not apply to? and explore the boundaries of patent protection.

Abstract ideas

Patent laws do not apply to abstract ideas, among other things. This is because abstract ideas are not considered patentable subject matter.

The term "abstract idea" is a legal fiction that differs from the layperson's understanding of the word "abstract". There is no clear agreement on what constitutes an abstract idea, and the definition remains elusive. However, abstract ideas are generally understood to include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.

Mathematical concepts refer to mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and calculations. Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships. Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions.

In addition, the mere use of a computer or the incorporation of an abstract idea into a computer program is not sufficient to make an otherwise patent-ineligible idea patentable. For example, network-controlled electric car charging stations and garage door openers have been deemed abstract, along with displaying advertisements before content in a video distribution service, dynamic tabs on a user interface, and computer virus screening.

Laws of nature

Patent law does not apply to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. The Supreme Court has ruled that these three categories of "inventions" are not patentable. This is because the basic tools of scientific and technological work should be freely available to everyone, as they are considered a "storehouse of knowledge".

The Supreme Court has stated that "simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable". In other words, an idea that is otherwise abstract cannot become patentable simply by being tied to the internet or some other medium. For example, in Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a patent covering a medical diagnostic test. Prometheus' patent covered a method of administering a drug to a patient, testing their metabolite levels, and adjusting the dosage accordingly. The Court held that this patent was invalid because it took a law of nature and merely included "well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field".

The Supreme Court has also expressed concern that patent law could "improperly" inhibit future discoveries by "tying up the future uses of the laws of nature". In other words, the Court wants to ensure that patents do not overly impede the progress of science and useful arts. This is particularly important in the digital age, where an increasing amount of our everyday lives are moving online.

The law of nature exception to patentability also applies to physical phenomena, scientific principles, and products of nature. For example, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.

Physical phenomena

However, not every claim describing a natural ability or quality of a product, or describing a natural process, necessarily recites a law of nature or natural phenomenon. For example, a method of treating cancer with chemotherapy is not considered to be a law of nature, because the cancer cells’ inability to survive chemotherapy is not considered to be a law of nature.

Scientific theories

Patent law is a legal framework designed to provide inventors with exclusive rights to their novel, new, and useful processes or inventions. However, patent law does not apply to scientific theories. This is because scientific theories are not inventions or discoveries but rather explanations and descriptions of the world. Inventions refer to solutions to problems, which can be either a product or a process, and discoveries refer to products of nature, living or not.

Additionally, scientific theories cannot be confirmed to be universally true or false. There are only ways of confirming them, which means they are not absolute truths. This uncertainty further distances scientific theories from the realm of patent law, which deals with concrete inventions and discoveries.

Furthermore, scientific theories are often the product of human curiosity and a desire to expand knowledge, rather than a pursuit of monetary gain. Patenting scientific theories would be contrary to the scientific ideal and could hinder the free exchange of knowledge, which is essential for scientific progress.

In summary, patent law does not apply to scientific theories because they are explanations of the world rather than inventions or discoveries. Theories lack the tangibility required for patent protection, and the uncertain nature of theories contradicts the concrete nature of patent law. Finally, patenting scientific theories could conflict with the scientific community's values and goals.

Discoveries of natural substances

However, the precise treatment of discoveries of natural substances varies across different jurisdictions. For example, the European Patent Office (EPO) specifies that finding a previously unrecognised substance occurring in nature is a mere discovery and therefore unpatentable. However, if a substance found in nature can be shown to produce a technical effect, it may be patentable. For instance, a substance occurring in nature with antibiotic effects or a naturally occurring gene that can be used in gene therapy may be patented.

In the US, the patent eligibility of natural products isolated or purified from natural materials is less clearly defined. While an isolated product must be significantly distinct from its natural form to be patentable, the inconsistent rulings of various courts on this matter have left ambiguity. For example, purified aspirin and purified adrenalin were deemed patentable because the purer forms were therapeutically different from the natural forms. On the other hand, purified tungsten from tungsten ore was held to be unpatentable because the commercial usefulness of the purified product could be attributed to its intrinsic properties.

In India, a strict view is taken on the patentability of naturally occurring substances. A product that is structurally and functionally different from its naturally-occurring equivalent may be eligible for a patent. However, this structural modification must impart some technical effect or unexpected advantage over the product under consideration.

Frequently asked questions