Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Constitutional Underpinnings of Patent Law
The Constitutional Underpinnings of Patent Law
The Constitutional Underpinnings of Patent Law
ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the
skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor.” See also Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1883) which states: “It
was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea,
which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.”
This last requirement, the embodiment of a scientific advance, is what we have come to know as the non-
obviousness requirement. Although this concept did not appear in the Patent Act itself until the 1952 revisions, it seems
clear that it has always been considered a constitutional prerequisite to patentability. Indeed, the case law prior to the
enactment of the 1952 Patent Act required a flash of inventive genius to be present before a patent could issue. See
Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347, 357 (1875); Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674, 681 (1893); C & A Potts &
Co. v. Creager, 155 U.S. 597, 607 (1895); Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U.S. 177, 185 (1925); Mantle Lamp
Co. v. Aluminum Products Co., 301 U.S. 544, 546 (1937); Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S.
84, 91(1941). The “flash of genius” requirement was specifically rejected by Congress with the enactment of 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), which in relevant part states: “Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
made.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000). Congress may statutorily make this change because they are not doing away with the
obviousness requirement, but rather, codifying the meaning of the Constitutional obviousness requirement, which is
certainly within the scope of their authority pursuant to the Intellectual Property Clause.
The constitutional reward of a patent, together with the constitutional requirements of utility, novelty and non-
obviousness, represent a delicate balance struck between the need to encourage innovation and the avoidance of exclusive
rights that stifle competition without any concomitant advantage to society. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats,
Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989). In implementing the permissive Constitutional authority, Congress is free to place
requirements upon the acquisition of a patent that further the goals of the clause, while at the same time not compromising
the specific dictates of the grant of power. This is true because Congress may only enact laws pursuant to one of its
enumerated constitutional powers. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000) (“”Every law enacted by
Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.”); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
(1803). Cf. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457, 468-69 (1982) (a determination that Congress
had the power to enact nonuniform bankruptcy laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause would eradicate from the
Constitution a clear and present limitation on the power of Congress to enact bankruptcy laws).
In so fashioning the patent laws to enhance the quid pro quo envisioned by the founding fathers (i.e., exclusive
rights in exchange for disclosure) Congress has enacted certain description requirements that certainly further the goals of
the Patent Clause, but which are not constitutional requirements in and of themselves. This is true because while an
adequate description is required, the Patent Clause itself does not discuss the particular requirements of the adequate
description. For this reason, the metes and bounds of the final requirement for patentability, namely that the patent
invention is adequately described, is within the province of Congress to determine.
It is worth noting that so many of those who challenge the Patent Act and rail against the patentability of things
such as software and genes fundamentally do not understand patent law. The argument that patents are unconstitutional is
simply ridiculous and easy to debunk with any understanding of U.S. history, nevertheless that argument continues to
have at least some traction in some circles. More insidious, however, is the fact that many in the popular-press and many
average citizens mistakenly collapse the entirety of the patent inquiry into the first, threshold question relating to patent
eligible subject matter. The fact that something is patentable subject matter, or in patent speak “patentable,” does not
mean that a patent must, should or even could issue.
There are at least five separate requirements for an invention to warrant a patent. In order for a patent to be issued
that which is claimed must be patentable subject matter, it must be useful, it must also be novel and non-obvious, and the
innovation must be adequately described to satisfy the sometimes peculiar U.S. disclosure requirements. So the fact that
the law says that a class of invention is “patentable” that merely means the initial threshold has been satisfied and if the
invention as articulated is useful, new, non-obvious and adequately described then a patent should issue. To collapse the
Page 3 of 3
entirety of the patent inquiry into a single inquiry makes for sensational headlines, allows for enraging 60 Minutes
segments and is simple enough even for the masses to understand.
Sadly, those reporters and advocates who devolve the patent inquiry into the first, threshold matter of patent
eligible subject matter are either intentionally misleading to forward their agenda or they are ignorant relative to patent
laws. Failure to understand the intricacies of the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the many Supreme Court
cases that have interpreted that clause allows some rather naive and wholly incorrect understandings to percolate. Those
who refuse to allow facts to influence their otherwise predetermined opinion are the enemies of innovation and why so
much energy is spent fighting needless battles rather than focusing on society embracing advances in innovation and
allowing risk taking businesses and individuals to have certainty of rights — settled ownership rights — that justify the
massive investments necessary to build companies, grow industries and organically create jobs.