infoJustice

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” min_height=”309.5px”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding=”0px|||||” custom_margin=”-89px|||||”]

A White Paper on Proposed Revisions by the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), S. 2140, published by Joshua D. Sarnoff and Charles Duan, critiques the 2023 legislation which seeks to revise the doctrine of subject matter eligibility in U.S. patent law. 

The paper argues that the proposed changes are poorly conceived, ignoring centuries of legal history and failing to address the real issues of uncertainty in patent eligibility. It also suggests that PERA would increase confusion, detract from innovation, and undermine the core goals of the patent system. The paper provides a historical overview of subject matter eligibility, critiques the rationale behind PERA, and offers a section-by-section analysis of the bill’s potential negative impacts.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]