The CLB’s own Jacob Sherkow has a great piece on The Yale Law Journal Online analyzing a little-noticed, but potentially very significant, aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus:
The Mayo Court’s novel test for patent eligibility—whether or not an invention involves “well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by researchers in the field”—focuses on how an invention is accomplished rather than what an invention is. That concern with the method of invention poses several normative, statutory, and administrative difficulties. Taken seriously, the “how” requirement will likely have broad effects across all levels of patent practice.
You can find the article here. It’s well worth the read.