This concept refers to the intersection of patent law (specifically 35 U.S. Code 101) and strategic patent portfolio management. Patent eligibility under 101 determines what subject matter can be patented. A portfolio centered around this understanding seeks to maximize the value of its patents by ensuring they cover eligible inventions. For example, a biotechnology firm might focus on patenting specific gene editing techniques or novel therapeutic compositions, carefully navigating the boundaries of patent-eligible subject matter to secure strong, enforceable intellectual property rights.
Strategic alignment with the requirements of 101 is crucial for securing valuable and defensible patents. Failing to meet these requirements can lead to patents being invalidated, rendering them worthless and jeopardizing investments in research and development. A robust understanding of this intersection helps organizations avoid costly litigation and ensures their innovations are adequately protected. Historically, judicial interpretations of 101 have evolved, impacting the patentability of various technologies, particularly in software and biotechnology. Therefore, staying abreast of these developments is essential for effective portfolio management.
This foundation in patent law and strategy is essential for understanding the broader landscape of intellectual property protection and its impact on innovation. The following sections will delve into specific aspects of building and managing a successful patent portfolio in light of the evolving legal framework surrounding patent eligibility.
1. Patent Eligibility
Patent eligibility forms the cornerstone of a successful “section 101 target center” strategy. A patent’s value hinges on its compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, which defines what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Understanding these requirements is essential for developing a robust and defensible patent portfolio.
-
Subject Matter Exclusions
Section 101 excludes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena from patent protection. Navigating these exclusions is critical. For example, a newly discovered mineral is a natural phenomenon and thus not patent-eligible. However, a novel method of synthesizing that mineral might be. Distinguishing between ineligible discoveries and eligible inventions is a key aspect of a successful strategy.
-
The Alice/Mayo Test
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test provides a framework for evaluating patent eligibility. This two-step test assesses whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, and if so, whether it adds a sufficiently inventive concept. This test has significantly shaped patent litigation and prosecution, particularly in software and life sciences, impacting the scope of patent protection available.
-
Practical Application
Demonstrating a practical application of an invention is vital for establishing patent eligibility. Claims must be directed to a specific, concrete application of an abstract idea or natural law. For instance, a mathematical algorithm itself is not patent-eligible, but its application in a novel image processing technique could be. Highlighting the practical utility of an invention strengthens its eligibility position.
-
Claim Drafting Strategies
Careful claim drafting is crucial for navigating the complexities of patent eligibility. Claims should focus on the specific technical features and functionalities of the invention, emphasizing the inventive concept and its practical application. Precise and well-structured claims are essential for overcoming eligibility challenges and securing robust patent protection.
By carefully considering these facets of patent eligibility, organizations can develop a robust “section 101 target center” strategy, ensuring their patents are aligned with legal requirements and effectively protect their valuable innovations. This proactive approach strengthens patent portfolios, minimizes litigation risk, and ultimately fosters a more secure foundation for research and development investments.
2. Subject Matter
A core component of a “section 101 target center” strategy lies in understanding eligible subject matter. 35 U.S. Code Section 101 defines the scope of patentable subject matter, outlining what types of inventions qualify for patent protection. Careful consideration of subject matter eligibility is essential for building a robust and defensible patent portfolio.
-
Technological Inventions
Technological inventions typically fall within the realm of patent-eligible subject matter. These inventions often involve advancements in fields such as computing, engineering, and biotechnology. Examples include novel medical devices, innovative software algorithms tied to specific hardware implementations, or new manufacturing processes. Focusing on the technical aspects of an invention strengthens its subject matter eligibility.
-
Challenges in Software and Life Sciences
Software and life sciences present unique challenges regarding subject matter eligibility. Abstract ideas in software, like mathematical formulas or fundamental economic practices, are not patentable. Similarly, discoveries of natural phenomena in life sciences, such as a gene sequence or a natural biological process, are not eligible. However, applications of these abstract ideas or natural phenomena in novel and non-obvious ways may qualify for patent protection.
-
Business Methods
Business methods face heightened scrutiny under Section 101. While some business methods may be patent-eligible, they must involve more than simply applying an abstract idea to a business context. The invention must demonstrate an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. This often requires a technical solution or a significant improvement in computer functionality.
-
Diagnostic Methods
Diagnostic methods, particularly in the medical field, require careful consideration of subject matter eligibility. Methods involving simply observing naturally occurring correlations, without further inventive steps, may be deemed ineligible. However, diagnostic methods incorporating novel techniques, devices, or algorithms tied to specific physical implementations, may satisfy the requirements of Section 101.
Strategic alignment with Section 101’s subject matter requirements is fundamental to building a strong patent portfolio. By focusing on the technical character of inventions and demonstrating their practical application, organizations can increase the likelihood of obtaining and enforcing valuable patents. This approach mitigates risks associated with subject matter eligibility challenges and reinforces a robust “section 101 target center” strategy.
3. Strategic Portfolio
A strategic portfolio, aligned with the principles of a “section 101 target center,” represents a dynamic collection of patents designed to maximize value and mitigate risk related to patent eligibility. It requires a proactive and informed approach to patent acquisition and management, focusing on aligning inventions with the requirements of 35 U.S. Code Section 101. This approach ensures that patents are not only granted but also withstand potential validity challenges.
-
Proactive Patent Prosecution
Proactive patent prosecution plays a vital role in building a robust strategic portfolio. This involves carefully crafting patent applications with a clear understanding of Section 101 jurisprudence. Drafting claims that emphasize the technical character of an invention and its practical application, while avoiding abstract claims, improves the chances of securing enforceable patents. For example, a software patent application might focus on specific algorithmic implementations tied to hardware, rather than claiming the underlying mathematical concept.
-
Portfolio Diversification
Diversification within a patent portfolio helps manage risk associated with evolving interpretations of Section 101. A portfolio concentrated solely in areas susceptible to eligibility challenges, such as software or diagnostic methods, carries higher risk. Strategic diversification across different technological areas, or within a specific area by claiming different aspects of an invention, provides a buffer against potential invalidations. This might involve pursuing patents for both the method and the apparatus related to a specific invention.
-
Regular Portfolio Review and Pruning
Regularly reviewing and pruning a patent portfolio ensures alignment with current Section 101 interpretations and business objectives. Patents that no longer align with evolving eligibility standards or are no longer relevant to the organization’s core business may be candidates for abandonment or sale. This proactive approach maximizes the value of the portfolio by focusing resources on maintaining and enforcing strong, relevant patents, and minimizing expenses associated with less valuable assets.
-
Integration with Business Strategy
A strategic portfolio must be deeply integrated with overall business strategy. Patent acquisition and management decisions should align with the organization’s research and development goals, market positioning, and competitive landscape. This integration ensures that the patent portfolio serves as a tool for achieving business objectives, protecting core technologies, and providing a competitive advantage. For example, a company focused on personalized medicine might prioritize patents covering specific diagnostic algorithms implemented on a proprietary device, thereby securing a strong position in the market.
By implementing these strategies, organizations can develop patent portfolios that are not only robust and defensible under Section 101 but also actively contribute to business success. A strategic portfolio, centered around the principles of patent eligibility, fosters innovation, mitigates risk, and maximizes the value of intellectual property assets. This approach is crucial for navigating the complexities of the patent landscape and securing a strong competitive position.
4. Claim Scope
Claim scope is inextricably linked to a successful “section 101 target center” strategy. The scope of patent claims defines the boundaries of the invention’s protection, directly impacting its eligibility under 35 U.S. Code Section 101. Carefully defined claims are crucial for securing valuable and enforceable patents. Overly broad claims risk encompassing unpatentable subject matter, while overly narrow claims may offer insufficient protection against infringement.
-
Balancing Breadth and Eligibility
A central challenge in claim drafting lies in balancing the desired breadth of protection with the requirements of Section 101. Broad claims covering a wide range of implementations are desirable for maximizing market exclusivity. However, excessively broad claims may encompass abstract ideas or natural phenomena, rendering them ineligible. For example, a claim directed to “using data to improve business outcomes” is likely too broad and abstract. A narrower claim focusing on “a method of using machine learning algorithms implemented on a specific hardware architecture to optimize inventory management based on real-time sales data” is more likely to satisfy Section 101.
-
Preemptive Claim Drafting
Preemptive claim drafting anticipates potential challenges under Section 101 by incorporating multiple claim sets with varying scopes. This strategy involves drafting broader claims alongside narrower, more specific claims. If the broader claims are challenged, the narrower claims may still provide valuable protection. For example, a patent application might include claims directed to a novel diagnostic method using a specific biomarker, as well as broader claims encompassing other potential biomarkers detectable through the same method. This approach provides fallback positions in case of eligibility challenges to the broader claims.
-
Functional Claiming
Functional claiming defines the invention in terms of what it does, rather than how it is structurally implemented. While functional claims can be useful for covering a range of implementations, they must be carefully crafted to avoid encompassing unpatentable subject matter. Claims should be tied to specific technical features and functionalities, avoiding overly broad functional language. For instance, a claim directed to “any method of compressing data” is likely too broad. A claim specifying a novel algorithm and its application to a particular type of data compression would be more focused and less susceptible to Section 101 challenges.
-
Claim Construction and Interpretation
How courts construe and interpret claims significantly impacts the determination of patent eligibility. Claim construction defines the meaning and scope of the claim terms, which in turn determines whether the claimed invention falls within patentable subject matter. Careful claim drafting, using clear and precise language, can help guide claim construction towards a favorable outcome. Providing detailed descriptions of the invention and its technical advantages in the patent specification can also support a more focused and defensible claim construction.
Strategically defining claim scope is therefore a critical element of a “section 101 target center” strategy. By carefully balancing breadth and eligibility, employing preemptive drafting techniques, and using precise language, organizations can secure strong, enforceable patents that withstand scrutiny under Section 101 and effectively protect their valuable innovations.
5. Prior Art Analysis
Prior art analysis forms a critical component of a “section 101 target center” strategy. A thorough understanding of the prior art landscape is essential for navigating the complexities of 35 U.S. Code Section 101 and securing patent protection for eligible subject matter. Prior art analysis reveals what is already known in a given field, enabling inventors and patent practitioners to distinguish novel and non-obvious inventions from pre-existing technologies. This distinction is crucial for demonstrating patent eligibility and avoiding potential pitfalls related to abstract ideas or natural phenomena.
By identifying relevant prior art, organizations can strategically position their inventions within the existing technological landscape. This analysis informs claim scope, ensuring claims are directed to novel and non-obvious aspects of the invention while avoiding overlap with ineligible subject matter. For example, in the field of software, identifying prior art related to specific algorithms or data processing techniques allows inventors to focus their claims on the novel application of these techniques within a specific context, rather than claiming the underlying algorithms themselves. Similarly, in the life sciences, prior art analysis can help distinguish a newly discovered natural correlation from a novel diagnostic method that applies this correlation in a practical and non-obvious way. A real-world example might involve developing a diagnostic test based on a newly discovered genetic marker. Prior art analysis would reveal existing knowledge about the marker and related diagnostic techniques, enabling the inventors to focus their claims on the specific and novel aspects of their test, such as the use of a particular detection method or combination of markers.
Failing to conduct thorough prior art analysis can have significant consequences. Claims encompassing ineligible subject matter due to insufficient novelty or non-obviousness may be rejected during patent examination or invalidated during litigation. This can lead to wasted resources and jeopardize the protection of valuable intellectual property. A robust prior art analysis, therefore, not only supports the development of strong and enforceable patents but also informs strategic decision-making regarding research and development investments. Understanding the prior art landscape is essential for navigating the challenges of Section 101 and maximizing the value of a patent portfolio.
6. Infringement Assessment
Infringement assessment plays a crucial role within a “section 101 target center” framework. Determining whether a third party’s product or process infringes upon valid and enforceable patents is essential for protecting intellectual property rights. However, the assessment process must consider the complexities of 35 U.S. Code Section 101. A patent deemed ineligible under Section 101 cannot be infringed. Therefore, infringement analysis must begin with a thorough evaluation of the asserted patent’s eligibility, ensuring it covers patent-eligible subject matter. This initial step is critical, especially in fields like software and biotechnology, where subject matter eligibility often becomes a contentious issue. For example, if a patent claims an abstract idea implemented using conventional computing technology, a court may find the patent ineligible under Section 101, precluding any finding of infringement. Conversely, if the patent claims a specific technical application of the abstract idea, a thorough infringement analysis proceeds.
Beyond eligibility, infringement assessment requires careful comparison of the accused product or process with the scope of the patent claims, as construed by the courts. This comparison analyzes whether each element of the asserted claim is present in the accused infringement. This analysis often involves technical expertise and a detailed understanding of the relevant technology. The doctrine of equivalents expands the scope of infringement beyond literal infringement, capturing instances where the accused product or process performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. However, the doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to expand the scope of a patent to encompass ineligible subject matter. For instance, if a patent claims a specific method of data compression, the doctrine of equivalents might extend protection to similar compression methods achieving similar results. However, it would not extend to all forms of data compression, particularly those employing fundamentally different techniques or falling outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.
Effectively integrating infringement assessment into a “section 101 target center” strategy requires proactive measures. During patent prosecution, careful claim drafting, informed by prior art analysis, strengthens the resulting patent and simplifies future infringement analyses. Regular portfolio review and assessment of potential infringement risks further enhance this strategy. Understanding the evolving landscape of Section 101 jurisprudence is crucial for both asserting and defending against infringement allegations. This knowledge enables organizations to make informed decisions regarding litigation, licensing, and overall patent portfolio management. Successfully navigating the complexities of infringement assessment, within the context of patent eligibility, ultimately safeguards valuable intellectual property assets and supports a strong competitive advantage.
7. Litigation Risk
Litigation risk represents a significant factor within a “section 101 target center” strategy. Challenges to patent eligibility under 35 U.S. Code Section 101 frequently arise in patent litigation. Understanding and mitigating this risk is crucial for protecting valuable intellectual property assets and avoiding costly legal battles. A patent’s vulnerability to Section 101 challenges significantly impacts its value and enforceability. A patent deemed ineligible offers no protection against infringement. Consequently, organizations must carefully assess the litigation risk associated with their patents, particularly in fields susceptible to eligibility challenges, such as software and biotechnology. For instance, a company holding a patent on a diagnostic method based on a naturally occurring correlation faces a higher litigation risk than a company holding a patent on a novel therapeutic compound. The former may be challenged as claiming a natural phenomenon, while the latter is more likely to be considered patent-eligible subject matter. This difference in risk directly influences litigation strategy and potential outcomes.
Several factors contribute to litigation risk related to Section 101. Broadly drafted claims, attempting to encompass a wide range of implementations, increase the likelihood of encompassing ineligible subject matter, making them vulnerable to challenge. Insufficient prior art analysis during patent prosecution can also heighten litigation risk. Failure to distinguish a claimed invention from prior art may lead to eligibility challenges based on lack of novelty or non-obviousness. Additionally, evolving judicial interpretations of Section 101 create uncertainty and impact litigation risk. A patent deemed eligible under prior interpretations may become vulnerable due to subsequent court decisions. This dynamic legal landscape necessitates ongoing monitoring and adaptation of patent portfolios to mitigate evolving litigation risks. For example, a software patent initially deemed eligible might face increased risk after a court decision narrowing the scope of patent-eligible subject matter in software. This evolving landscape requires proactive management of patent portfolios to mitigate emerging risks.
Mitigating litigation risk requires a proactive and multifaceted approach. Careful claim drafting during patent prosecution, informed by thorough prior art analysis, is essential. Claims should be directed to specific technical implementations and practical applications of an invention, avoiding overly broad generalizations that risk encompassing ineligible subject matter. Regular portfolio review and pruning, considering evolving Section 101 jurisprudence, helps identify and address potential vulnerabilities. Patents deemed high-risk may be candidates for narrower re-examination or abandonment. Finally, understanding the competitive landscape and potential infringers informs litigation strategy and helps anticipate potential challenges. A robust “section 101 target center” strategy recognizes and addresses litigation risk as an integral component of patent portfolio management. This proactive approach strengthens intellectual property protection, minimizes the likelihood of costly litigation, and enhances the overall value of a patent portfolio. By integrating litigation risk assessment into every stage of patent acquisition and management, organizations can navigate the complexities of Section 101 and secure a strong competitive advantage.
8. Innovation Protection
Innovation protection forms the ultimate objective of a “section 101 target center” strategy. Successfully navigating the complexities of 35 U.S. Code Section 101 is crucial for securing meaningful patent protection and fostering continued innovation. A patent portfolio aligned with Section 101 requirements provides a strong foundation for protecting inventions and incentivizing further research and development. This understanding recognizes the direct link between patent eligibility and the ability to effectively protect innovations from unauthorized use. Without robust patent protection, competitors may freely copy inventions, diminishing the incentive for investment in research and development. A “section 101 target center” approach ensures that patents cover eligible subject matter, maximizing their value and enforceability. For example, a biotechnology company developing a novel gene-editing technique must carefully navigate Section 101 to secure patent protection for its specific application of the technology, rather than claiming the underlying natural process itself. This strategic approach protects the company’s investment and encourages further innovation in gene editing.
Practical application of this understanding requires careful consideration of several factors. During patent prosecution, claims must be drafted strategically, focusing on the specific technical implementation and practical application of the invention. Thorough prior art analysis is essential to distinguish the invention from pre-existing technologies and avoid claiming ineligible subject matter. Regularly reviewing and updating the patent portfolio, considering evolving judicial interpretations of Section 101, is crucial for maintaining robust protection. For instance, a software company might adapt its patent claims to emphasize specific technical improvements in computer functionality, rather than claiming a broader abstract idea, in response to recent court decisions narrowing the scope of patent-eligible subject matter in software. This proactive adaptation strengthens innovation protection in the face of evolving legal standards.
A robust “section 101 target center” strategy recognizes that innovation protection requires more than simply obtaining patents. Patents must withstand potential legal challenges and provide meaningful market exclusivity. This requires a deep understanding of Section 101 and its implications for patent eligibility. By aligning patent portfolios with the requirements of Section 101, organizations can effectively protect their innovations, foster a culture of continued research and development, and secure a strong competitive advantage. The complexities and challenges of Section 101 should not be viewed as barriers to innovation protection, but rather as strategic considerations that, when properly addressed, enable organizations to maximize the value of their intellectual property and encourage further advancements in their respective fields.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the strategic alignment of patent portfolios with the requirements of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, often referred to as a “section 101 target center” approach.
Question 1: How does Section 101 impact patent valuation?
Section 101 determines patent eligibility. Patents deemed ineligible hold little to no value as they cannot be enforced. A patent covering subject matter excluded under Section 101, such as an abstract idea without a sufficient inventive concept, is unlikely to withstand legal challenges, impacting its market value and licensing potential. Conversely, patents aligned with Section 101 requirements are more likely to be deemed valid and enforceable, increasing their value and providing a stronger basis for monetization.
Question 2: What are common pitfalls in navigating Section 101?
Common pitfalls include claiming abstract ideas without sufficient inventive concepts, particularly in software and business method patents. Another pitfall is claiming natural phenomena or laws of nature without demonstrating a transformative application, often encountered in life sciences patents. Overly broad claims encompassing ineligible subject matter and inadequate prior art analysis leading to claims lacking novelty or non-obviousness also represent significant pitfalls.
Question 3: How does case law impact Section 101 interpretations?
Judicial interpretations of Section 101 evolve through case law, particularly Supreme Court decisions like Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories. These decisions shape the understanding of patent-eligible subject matter and influence the examination of patent applications and the outcome of patent litigation. Ongoing awareness of relevant case law is crucial for navigating Section 101 effectively.
Question 4: How can organizations mitigate Section 101-related risks?
Mitigating risks requires proactive measures. Thorough prior art analysis, strategic claim drafting focusing on specific technical implementations and practical applications, preemptive claim drafting with varying scopes, and regular portfolio review and pruning, considering evolving jurisprudence, are essential for minimizing Section 101-related risks. Integrating these practices into patent portfolio management strengthens patent protection and reduces litigation vulnerability.
Question 5: What role does claim construction play in Section 101 disputes?
Claim construction, the process of interpreting the meaning and scope of patent claims, plays a critical role in Section 101 disputes. How a court construes claims impacts the determination of whether the claimed invention falls within patent-eligible subject matter. Clear and precise claim language, supported by a detailed description of the invention in the patent specification, can help guide claim construction towards a favorable outcome and minimize eligibility challenges.
Question 6: How does a “section 101 target center” approach benefit innovation?
A “section 101 target center” approach strengthens intellectual property protection by ensuring patents cover eligible subject matter. This enhances the value of patents, provides a stronger basis for enforcement, and incentivizes further research and development. By mitigating Section 101-related risks, organizations can confidently invest in innovation, knowing their intellectual property assets are well-protected.
Understanding and strategically addressing the requirements of Section 101 is essential for building a robust and valuable patent portfolio. Proactive engagement with these principles maximizes innovation protection and supports long-term success.
The following section will discuss practical strategies for implementing a “section 101 target center” approach in various technological fields.
Practical Tips for a Section 101-Focused Patent Strategy
This section provides practical guidance for aligning patent strategies with the requirements of 35 U.S. Code Section 101, ensuring robust patent protection and mitigating eligibility risks. These tips offer actionable steps for navigating the complexities of Section 101 and maximizing the value of patent portfolios.
Tip 1: Focus on Specific Technical Implementations: Avoid claiming abstract ideas in isolation. Instead, focus on the specific technical implementation of the invention. For example, rather than claiming “a method of organizing data,” claim “a method of organizing data using a specific algorithm implemented on a distributed computing architecture.” Emphasizing the technical details strengthens patent eligibility.
Tip 2: Highlight Practical Applications: Demonstrate the real-world application of the invention. Explain how the invention solves a technical problem or provides a tangible benefit. For instance, if claiming a new diagnostic method, clearly articulate how the method improves disease detection or patient outcomes. Connecting the invention to a practical application reinforces its eligibility.
Tip 3: Draft Preemptive Claims with Varying Scope: Include multiple claim sets with varying levels of breadth. This provides fallback positions if broader claims face eligibility challenges. Having narrower, more specific claims alongside broader claims increases the likelihood of securing at least some level of protection.
Tip 4: Conduct Thorough Prior Art Searches: A comprehensive understanding of the prior art landscape is essential. Prior art searches reveal existing technologies, helping distinguish the invention and demonstrate novelty and non-obviousness. This strengthens the patent’s overall validity and reduces eligibility challenges.
Tip 5: Consult with Experienced Patent Counsel: Navigating Section 101 requires specialized legal expertise. Experienced patent counsel can provide guidance on claim drafting, prior art analysis, and overall patent strategy, maximizing the chances of securing enforceable patents aligned with Section 101 requirements.
Tip 6: Monitor Evolving Case Law: Stay informed about changes in judicial interpretations of Section 101. Court decisions shape the understanding of patent-eligible subject matter. Awareness of evolving case law enables proactive adaptation of patent strategies and minimizes potential risks.
Tip 7: Integrate Section 101 Considerations Throughout the Patent Lifecycle: From initial invention disclosure to patent enforcement, consider Section 101 implications at every stage. This proactive approach ensures alignment with eligibility requirements and maximizes the value of the patent portfolio.
By implementing these practical tips, organizations can strengthen their patent portfolios, mitigate litigation risk, and effectively protect their innovations. A Section 101-focused approach ensures patents are not only granted but also withstand potential challenges, providing a secure foundation for research, development, and market exclusivity.
The following conclusion summarizes the key takeaways and emphasizes the importance of a “section 101 target center” strategy for achieving comprehensive innovation protection.
Conclusion
This exploration of a “section 101 target center” strategy has highlighted the crucial intersection of patent eligibility and strategic portfolio management. Aligning patent strategies with the requirements of 35 U.S. Code Section 101 is essential for securing valuable, enforceable patents. Key takeaways include the importance of focusing on specific technical implementations, demonstrating practical applications, conducting thorough prior art analysis, and adapting to evolving judicial interpretations. Successfully navigating Section 101 requires a proactive and multifaceted approach, integrating these principles into every stage of the patent lifecycle.
The evolving landscape of patent eligibility demands continuous vigilance and adaptation. Organizations must remain informed about changes in case law and adjust their patent strategies accordingly. A robust “section 101 target center” approach is not a static endpoint but a dynamic process of continuous improvement. Embracing this proactive approach safeguards intellectual property, fosters innovation, and secures a competitive advantage in the marketplace. The ability to effectively navigate Section 101 will increasingly determine success in the complex world of intellectual property protection.
