RESOLVED, that patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should provide clear, predictable, and technology-neutral standards that promote innovation across all fields of technology and are consistent with international obligations, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should not discriminate against any field of technology in the grant, exercise, utilization, or enforcement of patent rights; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be limited to technological inventions, such that non-technological subject matter remains outside the proper scope of the patent system unless the claims, supported by the specification, are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem, which can include a specific improvement to the way computers operate; non-technological subject matter include methods of organizing human activity, processes in non-technological fields (including banking, finance, culture, and the arts), economic or commercial principles and activity, mathematical formulas, mental processes, and activities occurring entirely in the human mind; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that inventions directed to technological solutions to technological problems—including specific improvements to the way computers operate such as specific technological improvements to computer functionality, software, and user interfaces—should be eligible for patent protection when the solution or improvement is recited in the claims and supported by the specification consistent with Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300–01 (Fed. Cir. 2016), BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that modifications and applications of natural phenomena should be considered technological inventions, and therefore should be eligible for patent protection, including methods of medical treatment, vectors for gene therapy, and inventions involving genes or naturally occurring materials that have been isolated, purified, enriched, or otherwise altered by human intervention or employed in a useful invention, while unmodified genetic material or other naturally occurring materials in their native state, and processes that occur entirely in nature, should remain ineligible; and that judicial decisions inconsistent with these principles, including Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., should be abrogated through statutory reform; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, that concerns regarding overly broad claims should be addressed through the statutory patentability requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 rather than through patent eligibility doctrine, and the disclosure requirements of § 112 should be interpreted to ensure that the inventor’s contribution is commensurate in scope with the patent’s claims.