| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 財經法律系研究所 === 106 === In Bikram’s Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga of 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a yoga sequence could not be protected by the copyright law, the court also pointed out that if the yoga sequence was entitled to protection at all, that protection was more properly sought through the patent process. This obiter dictum inspired me to study whether the yoga could be protected by the U.S. patent law.
In terms of the patent eligibility, among the four patentable subject matters listed under 35 USC §101, yoga is more likely to conform to the concept of "process". However, observing the whole process of yoga practice and its efficacy, it does not seem to involve any external force and is merely a manifestation of the natural mechanism of the human body. Consequently, yoga should be a law of nature, which has been referred by the judicial precedent to be patent-ineligible. And there is no inventive concept in the process. Yoga may not be a patent-eligible subject matter.
Even excluding the problems arising from the patent eligibility, it is still hard to meet all patent requirements, such as novelty, non-obviousness, etc.
Applying our patent system to yoga, because of the merely law of nature lacking the technical creation of the human mind, it cannot conform the concept of invent under Article 21 of our Patent Law. Therefore, yoga is not patent-eligible. The examination of other patent requirements is also the same as the application of the U.S. law. That is to say, yoga may still encounter difficulties in the novelty and non-obviousness requirements under our patent law.
|
|---|
