About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Berkeley Files Responsive Motion to Broad's Substantive Motion No. 2 in Interference | Main | Broad Files Reply Brief to Berkeley's Opposition to Substantive Motion No. 1 »

December 16, 2019


An information invention is one where either the novel element(s) are comprised of information only, or where the result of a process is information only.

Laws of nature are comprised of information. Abstract ideas are comprised of information. Many novel diagnostic methods are also information inventions.

The patent system has a large, long-term problem fitting items of species of information into the statutory scheme. This problem proliferates in the Information Age. There is no agreement at any level on how to handle it, even today.

My proposal is simple: the key element of information in a patent context is actually the consumer of the information. If the consumer is non-human, the information is a machine component (or a philosophical equivalent) and should be eligible, subject to the statutory requirements of the Patent Act.

If the information is used by a human for human meanings, it should be beyond the reach of intellectual property rights.

Mr. Snyder,

As you have been informed, your proposal is simply off in that in the patent context ALL utility is a measure of consumption by a human at the end of the day.

Information age is no different in context of innovation to be protected. I would suggest reading up on the Kondratiev waves of innovation, and recognize that patent law - by its very nature of dealing with innovation - must be ever open-ended to the next wave. It is only those who refuse to want to provide innovation protection that are making a mess of things.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29