Blurring the Line Between Law and Fact in Patent Eligibility

by Dennis Crouch

The well-worn advice to trial lawyers, famously captured by Carl Sandburg, has long been: "If the law is against you, pound on the facts. If the facts are against you, pound on the law. If both are against you, pound on the table."

This traditional dichotomy between law and fact reflects a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence - that certain questions are reserved for judges (law) while others are reserved for juries (fact).  And, even in cases where the judge serves both roles, the law provides for a strict separation of role. See FRCP 52(a).  But patent law doctrine often defies this clean separation. Take patent eligibility as an example: while courts characterize the atextual eligibility doctrine as ultimately a question of law, the analysis may require underlying factual determinations about what was conventional in the relevant field at the time of invention. And, even the "legal" aspects of eligibility analysis - like whether claims are "directed to" an abstract idea - require their own form of proof and evidence. The difference is that because courts have labeled these as questions of law, they bypass traditional evidentiary standards. This creates a peculiar framework where some elements of proof are subject to strict evidentiary requirements while closely related elements are left to judicial reasoning without similar constraints. 

Continue reading this post on Patently-O.