Tag Archive for § 101

As USPTO Oversight Hearing Approaches, Some Questions On Eligibility

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on Wednesday as the sole witness in a USPTO oversight hearing.  The chair of the Subcommittee, Sen. Tillis (R-NC), and the ranking member, Sen. Coons (D-DE), have both expressed an active interest…

Blackbird Grounded—For Now

Almost two years ago, I wrote about a new non-practicing entity (NPE)—Blackbird Technologies.  It claimed to be helping innovators, but the main innovation it helped promote was its own—having the lawyers own the patents on which Blackbird was suing. When I first wrote about Blackbird, it had just sued Cloudflare over the ‘335 patent, which…

Yet More Evidence That NPEs Are Harmful To Innovation

Profs. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers first published a paper collecting evidence of the impacts of NPEs on innovation in 2014.  Recently, they updated the paper, incorporating additional evidence and research from the past four years.  The key takeaways? “NPE litigation has a real negative impact on innovation at targeted firms: firms substantially reduce their innovative…

Getting The Future Backwards: Iancu’s Comments On § 101 At IPO

This morning, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Iancu gave remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Annual Meeting.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, given IPO’s efforts to legislatively overturn the Supreme Court’s recent cases reinforcing the bar on patents on products of nature and abstract ideas, Director Iancu’s remarks focused on patentable subject matter—§ 101. While…

RALIA Would Take Us Back To The Patent Law Stone Age

At the end of June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018,” H.R. 6264 (RALIA).  RALIA, rather than restoring American innovation, aims to overturn the advances in American patent law that help protect innovation.  Last week, I addressed Rep. Rohrabacher’s ‘Inventor Protection Act’ (IPA) [1][2], and I’ve previously…

Iancu’s First Hearing Answers Questions, Leaves More Open

On Wednesday, April 18, new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu appeared for his first oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The Director was more open with the Committee compared to his confirmation process, leading to some interesting discussions. Algorithms Are Already Patentable A number of questions focused on the issue of patentable subject…

A New § 101 Trio Shows That We Don’t Need § 101 Legislation

The Bilski, Alice, Mayo, and Myriad cases are sometimes referred to as a § 101 quartet because they set forth the Supreme Court’s test for patentable subject matter under § 101.  Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen a new trio of § 101 cases emerge from Federal Circuit panels—Berkheimer, Aatrix, and Automated Tracking. The…

The Alice Drizzle—Barely Even Noticeable

At the end of the year, I took a look at whether Alice really had a significant impact on patents as a whole.  The answer was that Alice simply doesn’t affect that many patent applications.  But several important questions were left unanswered.  I also wanted to know whether the affected applications are really being affected…

The “Alice Storm” Is More Of A Drizzle

You might be familiar with Bob Sachs’ term “Alice Storm.” Sachs and his co-authors over at Bilski Blog argue that “Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank has had a dramatic impact on the allowability of computer implemented inventions.” I disagree, and some newly released data from the Patent Office seems to back me up.  Alice has…