Ex parte Lundgren is a 2005 decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office board of appeals, i.e. the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) concerning the standard for patent eligible subject matter in the United States.[1] Under 35 U.S.C. 101, patent applicants are entitled to a patent only if they claim patent eligible subject matter. In Lundren, the applicant sought to patent a business method for evaluating and rewarding manager performance.[1] Following an initial examination, the USPTO examiner rejected the applicant's claims, finding that they were not directed towards the patent eligible subject matter.[1] The applicant appealed this decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which subsequently held that process inventions do not have to be in the technological arts in order to be patentable in the United States.[2] They do, however, have to produce a "concrete, useful and tangible result".
The Board's decision in Lundgren constituted one of the first in a series of decisions beginning in the mid-2000s and continuing into the late 2010s regarding patent eligible subject matter.[3][4]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ a b c Scheinfeld, Robert (November 23, 2005). "'Ex Parte Lundgren' Expands Patentable Subject Matter" (PDF). New York Law Journal. Retrieved November 5, 2020.
- ^ Ex Parte Lundgren, 2004 WL 3561262 (B.P.A.I. 2005)
- ^ Squires, John (2006). "PATENT LAW 101: DOES A GRUDGING LUNDGREN PANEL DECISION MEAN THAT THE USPTO IS FINALLY GETTING THE STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER QUESTION RIGHT?" (PDF). IDEA - the Intellectual Property Law Review. 46.
- ^ McEniery, Benjamin J. (2009) The patentability of non-physical inventions : lessons from the United States. Monash University Law Review, 35(2). pp. 376-421.
External links
edit
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |