The document presents the views of the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) regarding potential reforms to Section 101 of U.S. patent law. These organizations emphasize the critical role of a predictable and well-defined patent system for effective university technology transfer and innovation. They express concern that recent court decisions have introduced ambiguous non-statutory concepts such as “abstract ideas” and “natural phenomena” into patent eligibility determinations, which has undermined clarity and consistency, thus negatively impacting university research commercialization.
In their responses, the associations argue that Section 101 should provide a broad, clear gatekeeping function focused on whether human ingenuity has resulted in a useful invention, with more specific exclusions and assessments—such as novelty, non-obviousness, and sufficiency of disclosure—to be handled under Sections 102, 103, and 112. They advocate for reinforcing statutory language rather than appending confusing judicial terminology. While favoring further discussion before any legislative amendment, they find merit in the joint IPO/AIPLA proposal’s simple, clear structure that avoids introducing problematic, ambiguous exclusions. They oppose the explicit statutory exclusion of specific technologies or the embedding of legal interpretations like “abstract ideas” or “laws of nature,” preferring technology-neutral, scientifically informed approaches and case-by-case assessments. The document also criticizes the impact of recent Supreme Court cases—particularly Alice, Myriad, Mayo, and Bilski—for creating significant uncertainty around the patent eligibility of software and biotechnology, thereby threatening innovation and the commercialization of emerging technologies.
