Law Commons^™

A Compulsory Solution To The Machine Problem, Cole G. Merritt

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already disrupting and will likely continue to disrupt many industries. Despite the role AI already plays, AI systems are becoming increasingly powerful. Ultimately, these systems may become a powerful tool that can lead to the discovery of important inventions or significantly reduce the time required to discover these inventions. Even now, AI systems are independently inventing. However, the resulting AI-generated inventions are unable to receive patent protection under current US patent law. This unpatentability may lead to inefficient results and ineffectively serves the goals of patent law.

To embrace the development and power of AI, Congress …

Patenting New Uses For Old Inventions, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A bedrock principle of patent law is that old inventions cannot be patented. And a new use for an old invention does not render the old invention patentable. This is because patent law requires novelty--an invention must be new. But while a new use for an old invention does not make the old invention patentable, the new use itself might be patentable. In fact, new-use patents comprise a significant part of the patent landscape-particularly in pharmaceuticals, when drug companies obtain new-use patents to repurpose old drugs. This trend has fueled debates over follow-on innovation and patent quality. But there is …

Uninformative Patents, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

It is a bedrock principle of patent law that an inventor need not know or understand how or why an invention works. The patent statute simply requires that the inventor explain how to make and use the invention. But explaining how to make and use something without understanding how or why it works yields patents with uninformative disclosures. Their teaching function is limited; someone who wants to understand or figure out the underlying scientific principles must turn elsewhere. This limited disclosure rule does not align with the norms of science and tends to make patent documents a less robust form …

Making Patents Useful, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

It is axiomatic in patent law that an invention must be useful. The utility requirement has been a part of the statutory scheme since the Patent Act of 1790. But what does it mean to be useful? The abstract and imprecise nature of the term combined with the lack of objective criteria for assessing it make utility the most malleable patentability requirement. As the invention landscape has evolved over time, the Patent Office and the courts have exploited this malleability to create technologically specific utility standards — de minimis for some inventions, but considerably more stringent for others. This has …

The Presumption Of Patentability, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

When the Framers of the United States Constitution granted Congress the authority to create a patent system, they certainty did not envision a patent as an a priori entitlement. As it stands now, anyone who files a patent application on anything is entitled to a presumption of patentability. A patent examiner who seeks to challenge patentability faces the dual burden of building a prima facie case of unpatentability and carrying the ultimate burden of proof. Thus, from the outset, an applicant is in a very good position; but the examiner’s limited resources, time pressures, and production goals tip the scales …

The Null Patent, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Failure is the basis of much of scientific progress because it plays a key role in knowledge building. In fact, negative results comprise the bulk of knowledge produced in scientific research. This is not a bad thing because failures always produce valuable technical information - whether it be a serendipitous finding, an abundance of unexpected technical data, or simply knowledge that an initial hypothesis was totally wrong. Though some have recognized that the dissemination of negative results has many upsides for science, transforming scientific norms toward disclosure is no easy task. As for patent law, the potentially important role that …

Serendipity, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Serendipity, the process of finding something of value initially unsought, has played a prominent role in modern science and technology. These "happy accidents" have spawned new fields of science, broken intellectual and technological barriers, and furnished countless products that have altered the course of human history. In the realm of patent law, one curious aspect of accidental discoveries that has received little attention in the academic literature and the courts is how they mesh with the substantive law of invention. This Essay shows that applying conventional doctrines to accidental inventions is theoretically untenable and, in certain circumstances, may result in …

The "Printed Publication" Bar After Klopfenstein: Has The Federal Circuit Changed The Way Professors Should Talk About Science?, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Would-be infringers target university patents because faculty inventors are more likely to make inadvertent disclosures than industrial inventors, possibly because of the importance of quick disclosure and publishing in academic science. In Klopfenstein, the Federal Circuit held that the posting of lecture slides after a talk triggered the printed publication bar of the patent statute. First, I argue (contrary to other commentators) that the Federal Circuit is consistent with prior precedent; that the public accessibility and dissemination inquiries should rest on substance rather than form. The focus of the § 102(b) inquiry remains on the inventor, who should lose the …