“The drafters of the Patents Act of 1952 knew what they were doing, and rewriting it in a way that circumvented the protections imposed on it by Congress was second nature. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Article 3 Court.” – Killian Petition
Jeffrey Killian filed a waiver petition with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, asking the court to provide clear guidance or revoke it. Alice/May Test for patent eligibility. Killian is involved in an ongoing patent dispute in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has dismissed his claims under § 101 of US Patent Application No. 14/450,042. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the decision. August 2022.
In the petition, Killian alleges that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) violated Supreme Court precedent by ruling that the US patent application was ineligible. Alice/May test.
“We cannot justifiably rely on a test that goes against Congressional intent, the overarching legal framework, and constitutional principles. Alice/May It’s a failed experiment,” Killian concluded in his petition.
The petition raises two questions relevant to the Supreme Court. Alice/May test.First, the deviation from Supreme Court precedent Alice/May Did the CAFC allow the USPTO to violate the due process provisions of Title 5 United States Code and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution? I asked if the exception was beyond the court’s constitutional authority.
Killian’s attorney, Berman Y. Mattis, previously gave an analysis of his case. IP watchdog.
CAFC: Claim Failure Alice/May; Killian’s Beef is with SCOTUS
In its prior opinion filed on August 23, 2022, the CAFC stated that Killian’s argument: Alice/MayThe ‘042 patent application is directed to “a computerized system and method for determining eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI) over a computer network.”
A CAFC judge ruled that the claim did not meet the first step. Alice/May Because it covers the abstract notion of “general description of common computer functions”. As to the second step, the court disapproved of the inventive concept, stating that “the claims here do not detail how a computer determines eligibility for benefit.”
In his appeal, Killian argued: Alice/May He said the tests were inadequate and vague, and that the PTAB’s decision to disqualify the patent should be ruled “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
However, the CAFC said Killian’s claims should go to the Supreme Court rather than the PTAB or the CAFC, which are simply applying Supreme Court precedent.
Killian’s plea
Now in the SCOTUS petition, Killian lays out his claims in three parts. First, Killian argues that: Alice/May Whimsical” and one of its steps Alice/May The test could be met by “nothing more than evidence, common sense analysis, and absurd claims that defy scientific principles.”
Second, Kilian mentions the term “inventive concept” in Step 2. Alice/May “It is a whim, and this whim cannot be ameliorated.” In Killian’s view, the term is a rebranding of “invention,” which he argues has been found meaningless by the Supreme Court on three separate occasions. ing.
The final claim is Alice/May should set aside the test based on the Supreme Court’s analysis of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationKillian argues, “requires setting aside each judicial-made exception to patent eligibility.”
due process
Returning to the question Killian posed at the beginning of his petition, he argued that how the USPTO would apply Alice/May Testing violates legal due process and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Act. According to Killian, the test violates due process “by using non-existent definitions and unproven fact-findings to deprive patent applicants of property rights.”
The CAFC wrote that Killian did not make the claim and could not show it. Alice/May The standard was “invalid due to ambiguity,” but the petition explains that’s not the case he’s making. Rather, he states that the term “inventive concept” Alice Step 2 is pointless.
“Out of respect, it is not necessary to assert invalidity for ambiguity to recognize that a decision violates due process of law,” the petition asserts. nullity is derived from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, not vice versa.” He added that discretion is required. Alice/May.
Exceeding the Constitutional Powers of Courts
Regarding the second question posed, the petition states that “no court is empowered to make exceptions to patent eligibility under any section of the Constitution, Section 101, or Title 35. ” he claims.
Despite the lack of empowering language in these documents, the courts have made numerous exceptions to patent eligibility, he adds.
“But such an exception violates the prerogatives of Congress and ignores the explicit limits that Congress has actually made. above allTitle 35 USC § 102 of the Patents Act of 1952,” writes Killian.
Abstract ideas should not be patentable, but they are not. Alice/May Rather, the petition explains, abstract ideas “are incompatible with the written description and enablement clauses of 35 USC § 112(b).” “In other words, the drafters of the Patents Act of 1952 knew what they were doing, and rewriting the Act in a way that circumvented the protections imposed on it by Congress was second nature. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Article 3 Court,” it added. .
Killian advocates applying this standard so that patent law works as originally designed by Congress. “Unfortunately, rather than stick to Congress’ intent, the Article 3 court destroyed Congress’ intended scope of patent eligibility by importing the very same ‘invention’ requirement that Congress excluded.” Did. “
Image Source: Deposit Photo
