Janke v. Vidal (Supreme Court docket 2023)
A few of you might know Oregon patent lawyer Garth Janke. Janke’s new petition for certiorari presents 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 way of manufacture and hit an eligibility roadblock in his try and patent points 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 end in 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 identified patentable product change into 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 identified that it’s not an excessive amount of patent monopoly to pre-empt the actual product itself?