My last post focused on definitions for the terms
"well-understood," "routine," and
"conventional"—or W-URC—from the subject
matter eligibility test set forth in Mayo and further
described in Alice. Those terms relate to one part of
the current test only. It seems fair to consider another
important term in the test, one that's considered before even
reaching the W-URC issue: Whether the claim is "directed
to" patent-ineligible subject matter, e.g., a law of
nature.
I was particularly reminded of the need to address this when
reading last week's Federal Circuit opinions in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v.
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals. Not only did Judge Prost
pen a stark dissent from Judge Lourie's opinion for the court,
but both the majority and dissenting opinions focused on this
phrase over and over. The opinion of the court referenced
"directed to" 17 times and the dissent used it 10
times. Further, the phrase was used either in italics or
quotes five times, emphasizing
