Document Type
Note
Abstract
The Congressional criteria for patentability, detailed in 35 U.S.C §§101-03, states that an invention must be novel, useful, and nonobvious. In addition to these requirements, the Judiciary requires that the invention not be classified as a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. The purpose of each of these criterion is to ensure that patents are granted only to inventions that “promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts.” As new technologies emerge, it is unclear whether these judicially created criteria still serve that purpose or whether the criteria are overly expansive such that truly useful inventions are insufficiently incentivized. This Note looks specifically at 3D printed biomaterials— designed to replicate naturally occurring cells, tissues, and organs—to determine if this technology is patentable under the current system of judicially created exceptions, if it should be, and if there are better alternative forms of intellectual property protection such that a change to the current patent system is unnecessary. Part I discusses the relevant background of 3D printed biomaterials. Part II discusses judicial exceptions to patentability generally. Part III analyzes the patentability of 3D printed biomaterials under the current system of judicial exceptions. Part IV argues that judicial exceptions should be removed as they exist currently. Part V discusses the implications of such a change.
Recommended Citation
Nicole Barba,
Note: Patentability of 3D Printed Biomaterials,
2
Notre Dame J. on Emerging Tech.
210
(2021).