World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Method (patent)

Article Id: WHEBN0022122214
Reproduction Date:

Title: Method (patent)  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: United States patent law, Article of manufacture, Machine (patent), History of United States patent law, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Method (patent)

In United States patent law, a method, also called "process", is one of the four principal categories of things that may be patented through "utility patents". The other three are a machine, an article of manufacture (also termed a manufacture), and a composition of matter.[1]

In that context, a method is a series of steps for performing a function or accomplishing a result.[2] While the terms method and process are largely interchangeable,[3] method usually refers to a way to use a product to accomplish a given result, and process usually refers to a series of steps in manufacture. Thus, one might speak about a method for curing headaches that comprises the administration of a therapeutically effective dose of aspirin or speak about a process for making soap or candles.

Not all methods, in the dictionary sense, are methods for purposes of United States patent law. The case law "forecloses a purely literal reading of § 101."[4] The concept is elaborated in the article machine-or-transformation test.

Previously, a method patent claim could be infringed only when a single person or entity practices all claimed steps.[5] Neither a physical device, such as a product that can be used to practice the method, nor instructions for practicing the method, are infringing until they are used by a single person to perform all the steps together. This rule was changed in Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir. 2012).[6] That case, however, was granted an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was decided and the circuit court ruling was reversed on Monday, June 2, 2014 (docket number 12-786).[7]

The European Patent Convention does not mention method patents (called process patents) so prominently, and the same applies to the TRIPS Agreement. The prime characteristic of process patents in these treaties is that "the protection conferred by the patent shall extend to the products directly obtained by such process".[8] Art. 28(1)(b) TRIPS provides a similar rule. This shows the historical background of process patents in chemistry, where there was a need to protect new processes to manufacture known substances.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Types of Patents". Technology Assessment and Forecast data base. USPTO. 1 June 2000. Retrieved July 11, 2012. Utility Patent- Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, (...) 
  2. ^ See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972) (“A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.”). See also In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] process...consists of a series of acts or steps.... It consists of doing something, and therefore has to be carried out or performed.”).
  3. ^ section 100(b) of the US patent act, 35 U.S.C. sec. 100(b), states that "[t]he term 'process' means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process. . . ."
  4. ^ Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978). In Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64 (1973), the Court said, "The question is whether the method described and claimed is a 'process' within the meaning of the Patent Act." See also In re Bilski ("But the Supreme Court has held that the meaning of 'process' as used in § 101 is narrower than its ordinary meaning.").
  5. ^ "[A] method claim is only infringed when a single party can be charged with performing each step of the asserted claim." Muniauction v. Thomson Corp. and i-Deal, (Fed. Cir. 2008) opinion
  6. ^ Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks (Fed. Cir. 2012) ipwatchdog review of decision
  7. ^ Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks (S.C.o.t.U.S. docket #12-786) LIMELIGHT NETWORKS v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES
  8. ^ Article 64(2) EPC
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.