Strictly Business

A Business Law Blog for Entrepreneurs, Startups, Venture Capital, and the Private Fund Industry.

  • About the Authors
    • Alexander J. Davie
    • Casey W. Riggs
    • J. Chandler Waits
    • Jennifer Wilson
    • Taylor K. Wilkins
  • Categories
    • Effective Attorney-Client Relationships
    • General Business Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Private Equity and Hedge Funds
    • Startups and Venture Capital
    • Technology
  • Guides
    • Exempt Reporting Adviser Filing Requirements
    • State Investment Adviser Registration
Shane Cortesi

About Shane Cortesi

Shane Cortesi is a Nashville-based attorney who advises inventors, artists, and entrepreneurs on protecting and licensing their inventions, artwork, and other intellectual property. A 2005 graduate of The George Washington University Law School, Shane also holds a Master’s in Biotechnology from Northwestern University and a Bachelor’s in Zoology from Miami University.

Learn More

Implications of the Recent Mayo Case on Patentable Subject Matter

April 27, 2012 by Shane Cortesi

Last December, I wrote a series of posts about what was – and remains – a hot topic in patent law:  patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.   The law on patentable subject matter often boils down to whether the invention is so abstract or such a product of nature that the invention is not patent eligible even if it meets the other statutory requirements of being new, not obvious and useful.  Since those posts, the Supreme Court has issued another decision further limiting patentable subject matter in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.  I believe that patent eligible subject matter is going to continue to be a thorny issue for many software, medical diagnostic and biotechnology inventions.  However, I believe that in the majority of cases involving mechanical devices, medical devices, and new chemical compositions, patent eligibility under § 101 is going to be a non-issue, that is most inventions in these fields will readily qualify under § 101. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: Patent

Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Part 2 – Application in the Software and Life Science Fields

December 12, 2011 by Shane Cortesi

This post is the fourth in a series written by Nashville attorney Shane Cortesi on patent protection.

As I mentioned in my previous post on patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the law in this area has been in a state of flux over the last few years, especially in the case of process patents.  This week, I’ll discuss recent § 101 cases in the software and life science fields.  The common theme in both fields is that enlisting the help of a creative patent attorney may increase a patent applicant’s chance of meeting the patentable subject matter requirement. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: Patent

Patentable Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Part 1 – An Historical Perspective

December 4, 2011 by Shane Cortesi

This post is the third in a series written by Nashville attorney Shane Cortesi on patent protection.

As I mentioned in my earlier article concerning the requirements for obtaining a utility patent in the U.S., in addition to being useful, novel and not obvious, an invention must constitute patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In this article, I will briefly discuss the historical context of the patentable subject matter requirement.  Next week I will discuss the application of the requirement in two fields where patent eligibility under § 101 is commonly an issue:  software and biotechnology. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: Patent

Requirements for Obtaining a Utility Patent in the U.S.

November 29, 2011 by Shane Cortesi

This post is the second in a series written by Nashville attorney Shane Cortesi on patent protection.

As I mentioned in my previous article where I provided an introduction to patent protection in the U.S., there are 3 types of patents:  utility patents, design patents, and plant patents.  This article deals with the requirements for the most common type of U.S. patents, utility patents.

To obtain utility patent protection in the U.S., an invention must be new and not obvious in light of the prior art.   “Prior art” includes publications and patents published before the inventor invented his invention, certain patent applications filed before the Applicant’s date of invention, and public use and public knowledge before the inventor invented his invention.  In addition, a sale, public use, or publication by anyone (even the inventor himself) more than 1 year prior to the date the inventor filed his patent application can prevent an inventor from obtaining a patent.  Finally, in some cases, the granting of a foreign patent before an inventor filed his U.S. application and the prior invention of another in this country before the inventor invented the invention himself can prevent an inventor from obtaining a patent. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: Patent

What are the different basic categories of patents?

November 14, 2011 by Shane Cortesi

This post is the first in a series written by Nashville attorney Shane Cortesi on patent protection.

Patents are important to companies for at least two reasons.  First, patents held by the company can serve as barriers of entry in preventing competitors from introducing similar products.  Second, patents held by third parties can prevent the company from introducing a product or, potentially, even entering a market altogether. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: Patent

About the editor

Alexander Davie image
Strictly Business is a business law blog for entrepreneurs, startups, venture capital, and the private fund industry. Its editor is Alexander J. Davie, an attorney at Riggs Davie PLC based in Nashville, Tennessee. His practice focuses on corporate, securities, and business law. He works mainly with technology companies, including startups and emerging companies, and private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds.
Contact Alex

Connect

Categories

  • Effective Attorney-Client Relationships
  • General Business Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Private Equity and Hedge Funds
  • Startups and Venture Capital
  • Technology

Subscribe

Sign up today to receive ongoing updates from Strictly Business.
© 2011–2021 - Alexander J. Davie | Attorney Advertising | Privacy Policy