Janke v. Vidal (Supreme Court docket 2023)
A few of you might know Oregon patent lawyer Garth Janke. Janke’s new petition for certiorari affords a philosophical inquiry into the scope of patent eligibility. It began with Janke’s invention of an improved leaf rake, which the USPTO discovered patentable. However, Janke additionally invented a technique of manufacture and hit an eligibility roadblock in his try and patent facets of that course of. The next three claims are consultant:
- 1. A leafrake head product, as described above.
- 21. Putting in a mathematical mannequin of the identical leaf rake head product outlined in Declare 1 on a pc.
- 26. Making use of the mathematical mannequin of Declare 21 on a standard 3D printer to lead to making the identical leaf rake head product outlined in Declare 1.
The USPTO discovered claims 21 and 26 directed to summary concepts and that judgment was affirmed on attraction. Now, Janke has petitioned the US Supreme Court docket for certiorari with the next two questions:
- Can a recognized patentable product grow to be ineligible for patenting when it’s claimed to be made by making use of a mathematical mannequin of the product on a 3D
- Can or not it’s an excessive amount of patent “monopoly” to preempt (in sensible impact) a mathematical mannequin of a product, as nobody is disputing follows from Gottschalk v. Benson, when it’s recognized that it isn’t an excessive amount of patent monopoly to pre-empt the true product itself?