Patents: utility Related Articles:

2L, Intellectual Property

This requirement comes from the broad language of Section 101 itself.

One does not have to identify all uses, only one specific use--patent will still cover all uses.

Why do we care if it useful? What is the problem if there is no use?

• Might still cause backlog in the Patent Office
• Don't want to encourage invention of non-useful devices
• Not cost-free to grant patents to people
• Still leaves an opportunity to exploit system: and the more patents out there, the more would-be patent holders have to do to get new patent

Entertainment is considered useful!

What about the issue of "moral utility"? (Don't give patents for things that are bad for society.)

• But don't want PTO to be arbiter of morality!
• Plus even "illegal" activities can change over time (alcohol and Prohibition...)
• As a result: not looked to much in modern times, but concept still exists and PTO/courts may still look to it

Specific Utility or, Does it Actually Work?

• Does this matter? 96% of patents never make a penny!