Warning: Declaration of subscribe2_widget::addPluginSubMenu() should be compatible with mijnpress_plugin_framework::addPluginSubMenu($title, $function, $file, $capability = 10, $where = 'plugins.ph...') in /nfs/c08/h02/mnt/115538/domains/ncjolt.org/html/wp-content/plugins/subscribe2-widget/subscribe2-widget.php on line 18

Warning: Declaration of subscribe2_widget::addPluginContent($links, $file) should be compatible with mijnpress_plugin_framework::addPluginContent($filename, $links, $file, $config_url = NULL) in /nfs/c08/h02/mnt/115538/domains/ncjolt.org/html/wp-content/plugins/subscribe2-widget/subscribe2-widget.php on line 18
Patenting Abstractions - NC Journal of Law & Technology

Patenting Abstractions

Download Full Text PDF

Volume 15, Issue 2 (Jan 2014)

This Article explores whether abstract ideas can and should be patentable. Historically, the patent system’s scope has been restricted to protecting tangible products or processes as opposed to abstract ideas.

Ongoing advances in information technologies, however, have blurred the boundaries of the traditional doctrine, and many recently issued patents appear to protect abstractions. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bilski v. Kappos, provided new, but vague, guidance on subject matter eligibility thresholds, leaving the question of the patentability of abstract ideas open. This Article addresses Bilski’s vague guidance both by descriptively showing that domestic patent law has consistently excluded abstract ideas and by proposing a more robust framework for assessing the patentability of abstractions. The proposed framework can be applied to the highly contested questions of whether business methods, computer software, and diagnostic methods each constitute patentable inventions. This Article concludes with the argument that the Federal Circuit’s updated approach in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group was inevitable and is consistent with the information economy while the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions in Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus reflect stagnation and an ill-devised policy making process.


Miriam Bitton, Patenting Abstractions, 15 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 153 (2014), available at http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bitton_Final.pdf.

The North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology has adopted the Open Access Program, a part of the Scholar’s Copyright Project created by Science Commons. Authors designate the conditions under which their articles are licensed. By downloading articles, you agree to comply with the license terms specified. Please contact NC JOLT at eic.ncjolt@gmail.com with permissions inquiries.