Changes

'''Patent eligibility''' refers to the types of inventions which can be protected by a [[patent]].  Traditionally excluded are laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena, but the scope of those exclusions has expanded in recent judicial decisions.

'''Patent eligibility''', or patent subject matter eligibility," refers to the types of inventions which can be protected by a [[patent]].  Traditionally excluded are laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena, but the scope of those exclusions has expanded in recent judicial decisions.

35 U.S.C. 101 is the statutory definition of patent eligibility.  The eligibility has four categories : invention—process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

35 U.S.C. 101 is the statutory definition of patent eligibility.  The eligibility has four categories: invention—process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.

[[U.S. Supreme Court]] decisions in ''[[Bilski v. Kappos]]'' (2010) and ''[[Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank]]'' (2014) made it more difficult to patent computer-related inventions by expanding the exclusion from eligibility of "abstract ideas," while ''Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus'' (2012) and ''Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics'' (2013), denied patents to life sciences under is n expanded view of "laws of nature."

[[U.S. Supreme Court]] decisions in ''[[Bilski v. Kappos]]'' (2010) and ''[[Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank]]'' (2014) made it more difficult to patent computer-related inventions by expanding the exclusion from eligibility of "abstract ideas," while ''Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus'' (2012) and ''Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics'' (2013), denied patents to life sciences under the Court's expanded view of "laws of nature." Only one additional Supreme Court decision has ever addressed patent eligibility: ''Diamond v. Diehr'', 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

As of 2019, application of these decisions resulted in courts invalidating for patent ineligibility twice as many software patents as they sustained, and invalidating 25% more life science patents as upheld.

As of 2019, application of these decisions resulted in courts invalidating for patent ineligibility twice as many software patents as they sustained, and invalidating 25% more life science patents as upheld.