The Mayo/Alice framework for determining subject matter eligibility of patents under 35 U.S.C. §101 has long since antagonized both patent prosecutors and litigators alike, causing significant uncertainty in the realm of...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision that the claims of a patent for software that manages pre-employment background checks weren’t patent-eligible. The case is In Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published new guidance on subject-matter eligibility as related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), opening a written comment window to respond with a deadline of...more
From the U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective, its Mayo and Alice decisions from 2012 and 2014, respectively, are still sufficient to govern patent law’s § 101 analysis. This inference stems in-part of the Supreme Court’s cert...more
A consequence (predominantly negative) of the Supreme Court's recent foray into defining (however inadequately) the contours of patent-eligible subject matter is to give the district courts (and to a somewhat lesser extent,...more
When we first wrote about the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), I had no idea I would have the honor of being invited to testify before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to a graphical user interface that seeks to enhance how search results are displayed to a user. The court agreed that the claims are...more
The Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed a patent infringement claim, holding that the asserted claim directed to natural speech processing is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because it fails the Alice...more
In those (in retrospect) halcyon days more than a decade ago (before Mayo, Myriad, Alice, and the subject matter eligibility quagmire arose), perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision was KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex...more
On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two highly watched petitions for certiorari, refusing to hear cases that dealt with the patent eligible subject matter requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court’s...more
It has been a while since the Federal Circuit weighed in on the patent eligibility of so-called “natural product” claims. While the finding of non-eligibility in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc. is not surprising, it...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a New York court’s grant of a motion by Google to dismiss a patent infringement case against the company. The court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an inventive concept in its...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that claims to a computer system for identifying eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits are invalid as patent...more
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in the closely observed case American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., v. Neapco Holdings LLC. The Court’s refusal to hear the case disappointed patent practitioners nationwide—and...more
In our previous post, we promised to revisit the American Axle and Ariosa petitions for certiorari in February 2021 once responses had been filed. However, the U.S. Supreme Court granted extensions in both cases; the first...more
Each time the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed patent eligibility, the law surrounding what can and cannot be patented has become murkier. Most recently, the wake of the Supreme Court’s Alice ruling has led to irreconcilable...more
Despite one concurring judge's belief in a "fair probability" that the U.S. Supreme Court would grant certiorari and reverse an order invalidating American Axle's driveshaft patent for purportedly claiming natural law, the...more