Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Recent Proposal for Section 101 Reform

By John Isacson on April 24, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives recently released a framework for amending Section 101.  The group includes Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), as well as Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Representative Steve Stivers (R-Ohio).  As Senator Coons stated in a press release:

Today, U.S. patent law discourages innovation in some of the most critical areas of technology, including artificial intelligence, medical diagnostics and personalized medicine.

The group presented a framework to amend Section 101 to limit patentability exclusions, and focus patentability on other sections of the Patent Act, namely Sections 102 (novelty), 103 (obviousness) and 112 (enablement and written description).  The framework is reproduced below:

  • Keep existing statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof.
  • Eliminate, within the eligibility requirement, that any invention or discovery be both “new and useful.” Instead, simply require that the invention meet existing statutory utility requirements.
  • Define, in a closed list, exclusive categories of statutory subject matter which alone should not be eligible for patent The sole list of exclusions might include the following categories, for example:
    • Fundamental scientific principles;
    • Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature;
    • Pure mathematical formulas;
    • Economic or commercial principles;
    • Mental activities.
  • Create a “practical application” test to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter is construed narrowly.
  • Ensure that simply reciting generic technical language or generic functional language does not salvage an otherwise ineligible claim.
  • Statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent eligible subject matter in favor of exclusive statutory categories of ineligible subject matter.
  • Make clear that eligibility is determined by considering each and every element of the claim as a whole and without regard to considerations properly addressed by 102, 103 and 112.

Section 101 issues can be encountered in PTAB post-grant reviews, covered business method review, and inter partes review when amended claims are presented.

Photo of John Isacson John Isacson

A registered patent attorney, John has particular experience in strategic counseling and patent portfolio management, infringement litigation, due diligence, inter partes and post-grant reviews, reexaminations, patent interferences, inventorship and ownership disputes, biosimilars, and Hatch-Waxman. He is regularly involved in litigation and U.S. Patent…

A registered patent attorney, John has particular experience in strategic counseling and patent portfolio management, infringement litigation, due diligence, inter partes and post-grant reviews, reexaminations, patent interferences, inventorship and ownership disputes, biosimilars, and Hatch-Waxman. He is regularly involved in litigation and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proceedings. John also advises on related FDA matters for certain technologies.

Read more about John IsacsonEmailJohn's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    PostGrant-Counsel Blog
  • Organization:
    Troutman Pepper Locke

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo