Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
252 bytes added ,  07:30, July 31, 2022
Patent eligibility is not to be confused -- although it often is -- with the other requirements of patentability, which are 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a patent must have novelty) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a patent must be non-obviousness).
Line 8: Line 8:     
In 2022, prospects brightened for clarification of patent eligibility "in a case involving noisy driveshafts," because "[t]he US [[Solicitor General]] recommended [on May 24] that the justices step in to clarify how to determine whether or not an invention qualifies as one worthy of patent protection."<ref>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/patent-eligibility-case-is-teed-up-for-next-supreme-court-term</ref>  But the Supreme Court denied [[cert]] in this case.
 
In 2022, prospects brightened for clarification of patent eligibility "in a case involving noisy driveshafts," because "[t]he US [[Solicitor General]] recommended [on May 24] that the justices step in to clarify how to determine whether or not an invention qualifies as one worthy of patent protection."<ref>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/patent-eligibility-case-is-teed-up-for-next-supreme-court-term</ref>  But the Supreme Court denied [[cert]] in this case.
 +
== Other requirements ==
 +
Patent eligibility is not to be confused -- although it often is -- with the other requirements of patentability, which are 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a patent must have novelty) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a patent must be non-obviousness).
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
 
[[category:patents]]
 
[[category:patents]]
 
[[category:Patent Law]]
 
[[category:Patent Law]]
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits

Navigation menu