On “abstract”

A present thorny or even disastrous problem for inventors and all patent holders is that the courts now in light of Alice review patent claims to decide if the invention claimed is “abstract”. Unfortunately, SCOTUS did not define or elaborate so it has left the door open wide and other courts have done the best they could to apply Alice in a manner which has often invalidated patents for inventions those inventors have spent their lives and life’s savings or staked the existence of their companies developing. These decisions are crushing inventors and allowing our large competitors to take our property with impunity.

We believe there is a better way. Initially, in our view even if an invention specified in a patent application has “abstract” elements to it which as the courts have noted all inventions do as all at the initial stage are based upon a novel abstract concept, so long as the invention adequately describes a manner of implementing or utilizing that concept then the invention no longer can be regarded as abstract. It is one thing to claim “fly to the moon”, but if the inventor teaches one skilled in the art how to actually do so then the invention ceases to be abstract and has by any reasonable test met reduction to practice. America crossed that hurdle over a century ago when working models were no longer required to be filed which as many know caused great problems at the PTO as they were running out of room to store them.

But we think there is a more fundamental issue involved here. As we have previously stated in our position statement and on our site over the course of time law evolves and occasionally rather than run true north we end up somewhere off course. We believe the best solution is to when in doubt or when error creeps in always return to the surveyor’s mark. That in this instance is the Constitution. The elegant and simple path the founders began us on so long ago is no less applicable now than is was nearly 250 years ago. Patents should be issued for ALL inventions that promote the ‘Progress of Science’, or are useful. Those are the best surveyor’s mark. We need to return to the original and stop working with imperfect and approximated copies. Eventually a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy becomes so blurry and useless that a masterpiece becomes a poor and crude imitation. As a result, the patent system has become unpredictable and inventor property rights as a practical matter barely exist as patents for us have become far too hard, expensive and slow to get and enforce. In reestablishing the proper test for patentability to be what the founders envisioned we will greatly simplify and improve the predictability and reliability of the patent system and give inventors a fighting chance by respecting their right to the “faculties of their minds”.

For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s