The Supreme Court Hears Patent Case

By providing an exclusive right to innovators, the US patent system is meant to encourage innovation and constant technological improvements. In this manner, for a certain amount of time, innovative people/companies are the sole benefactors from their innovation; giving them an advantage in their industry.

But what is worthy of being patented? Has the US government granted too many patents? An article on MSNBC discusses an upcoming patent case before the Supreme Court. This particular case deals with LabCorp and Metabolite Laboratories and their “patented method of correlating blood homocysteine levels with vitamin deficiencies, relating to heart attacks” (Waldmeir). But there is a larger issue at hand. The decision in this case could set precedence for the patent process in the US. Perhaps the government is giving too many patents and not allowing enough information to become common knowledge that benefits all. Patents awarded on this type of information/innovation have led to unneeded litigation and ultimately a slowdown of innovation.

So what should the US government do? They do not want to make the patent process difficult and discourage innovation, but they also do not want what perhaps should be shared information to be patented either. How can they draw a line and distinguish between the two?