English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

On the face of it the doctrinal lines of disagreement around subject matter eligibility in US law and the invention requirement, as it is known in Europe, could not be further apart. The US statute is silent as to what does not constitute patentable subject matter, while the European Patent Convention takes a much more formal approach. Unpatentable subject matter is listed, categorized either as things not to be regarded as inventions under Article 52(2) ; or as exceptions to patentability under a small number of umbrella contexts. Professor Burk’s incisive analysis of the two-pronged test of subject matter eligibility in Alice and its place within recent decisions by the SC is monitory in three particular aspects of direct relevance to the many decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) on the ‘invention’ requirement. First, the use and development of a common denominator across excluded categories. Second, the seeping of patentability criteria into eligibility. Third, the nascent focus on the language of the claims which so far the US Supreme Court has declaimed. I will address each of these points in turn, comparing the direction of legal ideas around patent eligibility in both systems of law, before drawing conclusions.

Alice and ‘something more’: the drift towards European patent jurisprudence