Urvashi Bhagat v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

This petition presents a conflict between the incentive to invent, as the Constitution provides for, and the breadth of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It has become difficult to recognize the line between patentable subject matter and non-patentable products of nature. This Court has made conflicting statements regarding that line. In the case at hand, petitioner, a solo inventor, has invented new and useful lipid compositions that can improve the health of millions of Americans who suffer from chronic illness. Yet she is being denied a patent that would support her in bringing these beneficial inventions to market. This frustrates the purpose of the U.S. patent system. This petition further presents the issue of holding the federal courts accountable in properly reviewing agency decisions. The Questions Presented are: 1. a. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in finding petitioner’s patent application claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the court failed to apply the correct patent-eligibility standard under this Court’s conflicting holdings in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948) and Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013). b. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in finding petitioner’s patent application claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the court did not apply the patent-eligibility standard set forth in Myriad.