Law Commons^™

Do Patents Drive Investment In Software?, James Hicks

Northwestern University Law Review

In the wake of a quartet of Supreme Court decisions which disrupted decades of settled law, the doctrine of patentable subject matter is in turmoil. Scholars, commentators, and jurists continue to disagree sharply over which kinds of invention should be patentable. In this debate, no technology has been more controversial than software. Advocates of software patents contend that denying protection would stymie innovation in a vital industry; skeptics argue that patents are a poor fit for software, and that the social costs of patents outweigh any plausible benefits. At the core of this disagreement is a basic problem: the debate …

Comment: On Patents And Appropriations—And Tragedies, David O. Taylor

Washington and Lee Law Review

I write to provide a few remarks concerning Sasha Hoyt’s illuminating work published in the pages of this journal. In it, Hoyt addresses the impact of the Supreme Court’s patent eligibility decisions on private investment in the development of medical diagnostic technologies. As an initial matter, I want to congratulate Hoyt for tackling an important topic. As Hoyt discusses, medical diagnostic technologies enable the diagnosis of diseases and other medical conditions such as genetic disorders, and early and accurate diagnosis may lead to early treatments and, ultimately, at least in some cases, saved lives. But the creation of medical diagnostic …

The Impact Of Uncertainty Regarding Patent Eligible Subject Matter For Investment In U.S. Medical Diagnostic Technologies, A. Sasha Hoyt

Washington and Lee Law Review

Historically, 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligible subject matter, has been construed broadly—with its legislative history indicating that it should cover “anything under the sun that is made by man.” The Supreme Court crafted three exceptions to § 101: (1) abstract ideas, (2) laws of nature, and (3) natural phenomena. In recent years, the Supreme Court’s eligibility jurisprudence has further narrowed § 101 to effectively exclude meritorious medical diagnostic methods. Indeed, since the Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit has held every single diagnostic method claim brought before it …

Patent Eligibility And Cancer Therapy, Christopher B. Seaman

Washington and Lee Law Review

As an empirical legal scholar, I am pleased to report that Sasha Hoyt has done what very few law students—and even many law professors—could achieve. She successfully conducted a novel empirical study to assess the real-world impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., on venture capital (VC) investment in startups and other companies that develop medical diagnostic technology.

As Ms. Hoyt notes, patent protection is particularly important for startup companies, as it can help protect their innovations from unauthorized use, attract funding and other investments, and foster collaboration with third parties. In …

The Trademark As A Novel Innovation Index, Brian J. Focarino

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

When studying the relationship that exists between entrepreneurship and intellectual property, patents receive the most scholarly attention. The attention makes sense when we consider that patents are closely associated with technical progress, grant temporary monopolies that incentivize investment in research & development (R&D), and function as vectors of technological dissemination in and of themselves. In a number of industries however, conventional forms of innovation often associated with patenting are minimal or missing altogether, and require us to look elsewhere to discern innovative behavior. This Essay highlights novel applications for trademark law to entrepreneurial activity in low-technology industries and low-financing locations …