Tag Archive for patentable subject matter

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…

More Evidence Is In—Alice Has Been Good For R&D

Tuesday marked one milestone—utility patent number 10,000,000.  But it also marked a far more important milestone—the 4-year anniversary of the Alice decision.  Looking back on those 4 years, Alice has been a clear success in eliminating patents that never should have issued.  It’s had a very limited impact on patent prosecution, with most applications entirely…

‘Gold Into Lead’ Article Focuses On Pyrite Patents

I’m out at IPBC Global this week, and one of the hot topics of conversation here is patent eligibility under § 101.  In fact, Director Iancu’s remarks focused heavily on § 101, and the panel I spoke on debated the relative importance of patent quality and patent eligibility.  (I argued that patent quality is more…

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…

Innovation Is Alive And Well—Patenting Activity

After examining the evidence for U.S. innovation as shown by startups and venture capital, and by R&D spending, I want to look at patenting activity—new patent applications and new patent grants.  Particularly given accusations that the U.S. patent system has fallen behind other systems worldwide—accusations based on extremely questionable analysis—it’s worth looking at what patent…

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…

It’s The Claim Language—Except When It Isn’t

Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a decision in Visual Memory v. NVIDIA, deciding that the Visual Memory1 cache patents are patent-eligible under § 101. Unfortunately, in doing so the Federal Circuit makes the same mistake they’ve made a few times now—they’ve looked at the specification, not the claims, in order to justify finding…