1. Utility Patents

a) Mechanical Engineering

Utility patents in mechanical engineering protect new machines, devices, and manufacturing processes.

Example: US Patent No. 6,000,000 covered an innovative way to assemble a bicycle chain more efficiently.

Legal Considerations:

  • Novelty and non-obviousness are key (35 U.S.C. § 102, 103).
  • Functional aspects are emphasized over aesthetic features.
  • Case Law: KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) refined the test for non-obviousness, making it harder to patent trivial modifications.

b) Electrical and Electronics Engineering

Patents in this domain often cover circuits, semiconductors, and power systems.

Example: US Patent No. 7,469,381, which relates to semiconductor device fabrication.

Legal Considerations:

  • Patentability often hinges on whether the invention involves an inventive step beyond routine engineering.
  • Software-related inventions require careful claims to avoid exclusion under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Case Law: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) limited patent protection for abstract software concepts.

c) Chemical and Pharmaceutical Engineering

Patents protect compositions of matter, formulations, and production methods.

Example: US Patent No. 5,616,599 covered the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.

Legal Considerations:

  • Patentability often requires proving a non-obvious improvement over prior formulations.
  • The Hatch-Waxman Act (1984) provides a framework for generic drug approvals and patent term extensions.
  • Case Law: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) invalidated diagnostic patents based on natural correlations.

2. Design Patents

Protect the ornamental aspects of functional items.

Example: US Design Patent D593,087 for the Apple iPhone’s aesthetic design.

Legal Considerations:

  • Design patents require novelty in appearance but not functionality (35 U.S.C. § 171).
  • Case Law: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2016) clarified damages calculations in design patent infringement cases.

3. Plant Patents

Cover new and distinct plant varieties reproduced asexually.

Example: US Plant Patent No. PP7,121 for a new variety of rose.

Legal Considerations:

  • Protection is limited to asexually reproduced plants (35 U.S.C. § 161).
  • Case Law: J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001) upheld the patentability of genetically modified seeds.

4. Biotechnological Patents

Cover genetic modifications, CRISPR techniques, and bioengineering processes.

Example: US Patent No. 8,697,359 for CRISPR gene-editing technology.

Legal Considerations:

  • Must not cover naturally occurring genes per Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
  • Ethical and public policy concerns can impact enforceability.

5. Software and AI-Related Patents

Cover AI algorithms, neural networks, and data processing methods.

Example: US Patent No. 10,102,116 for a machine-learning-based fraud detection system.

Legal Considerations:

  • Must demonstrate a technical improvement rather than an abstract idea (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank).
  • The EPO (European Patent Office) applies a “technical contribution” test for AI-related inventions.

Conclusion

Patent laws vary across scientific and engineering fields, with key distinctions in eligibility, obviousness, and enforceability. Legal precedents continue to refine the boundaries of patentable subject matter, requiring careful drafting and strategic claim construction.