America's first patent statutes date to the 18th century, when steam engines and cotton gins were cutting-edge. The law that defines what inventions are patentable was written in 1793, and its operative language has not been substantively revised since. It’s little wonder, then, that in recent years, confusion has reigned over what can and cannot be patented.

The Constitution calls on Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by securing exclusive rights for inventors. But how should that apply to genetic blood tests that detect disease biomarkers? What about software that allocates bandwidth across a 5G network? Or artificial intelligence?

Under current law, the answers aren't clear. The Supreme Court has stepped in to try and craft workable rules, but has only confused matters further. Only Congress can adequately clarify our patent laws, and the time to do so is now — before we lose any more of our global competitive edge.

A brief review of how the Supreme Court has clouded the question over the past 15 years reveals how critical it is to proceed.

In the first of four key cases, 2010's Bilski v. Kappos, the court held that a finance firm's method for reducing risk in commodities trading was ineligible for a patent. But the court didn't clarify which, if any, new business........

© The Hill