This article originally appeared in World Intellectual Property Review online, October 24, 2022.
A recent case has only added to the clamor for clarity on Section 101, says Phil Harris of Holland & Hart.
In yet another interesting patent eligibility case, the Supreme Court has once again requested input and insight from the US solicitor general.
The patentee in Tropp v. Travel Sentry obtained claims directed to “[a] method of improving airline luggage inspection by a luggage screening entity.”
The claims included features of “making available to consumers a special lock having a combination lock portion and a master key lock portion,” and “marketing the special lock to the consumers in a manner that conveys to the consumers that the special lock will be subjected by the luggage screening entity [e.g., the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)],” among others.
In this World Intellectual Property Review guest article, Holland & Hart partner Phil Harris, whose practice focuses on preparing and prosecuting U.S. and foreign patent applications and contesting intellectual property disputes, explores several recent eligibility cases.
Please click here to read the full article (subscription required): Why Patent Eligibility is Ripe for SCOTUS Review.
This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author(s). This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.