With Congress and Courts at Standstill, IPWatchdog LIVE 2022 Panel Says Upcoming ‘Action’ on 101 Will Be at USPTO

“Knowles said the senators’ June letter [on patent thickets] is confusing, as it seemingly demonstrates ‘a complete lack of understanding about how law is made.’”


From far left: Bob Stoll, Sherry Knowles and David Jones

During a session titled “Politics, Policy and Legislation” on Monday at IPWatchdog LIVE 2022, three panelists who have each played a role in shaping patent law over the years discussed recent developments in patent eligibility reform, and congressional interest in so-called patent thickets being fueled by continuation patents and other topics.

On the latter point, Sherry Knowles of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies recalled the headline-grabbing 2007 case she brought against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) while in her former role as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Chief Patent Counsel to enjoin the Office from promulgating substantive rules concerning claims and continuations practice. In June, Knowles authored an article for IPWatchdog reminding Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Cornyn, Collins and Braun, who sent a letter to USPTO Director Kathi Vidal on June 8, that the Office remains under a permanent injunction as a result of the en banc decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that found in favor of GSK and independent inventor, Triantafyllos Tafas. The senators’ letter asked Vidal to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or request for comments by September 1, 2022, addressing the issue of patent thickets, particularly in the drug industry. However, the Office has not yet delivered.

Knowles said the senators’ June letter is confusing as it seemingly demonstrates “a complete lack of understanding about how law is made.” She added: “How does Congress not understand that it’s their job to create law in the area of patents and to be the watchdog in this area?”

David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance (HTIA) addressed the issue of Section 101 reform, in which the HTIA has been actively involved. Jones said that, while he agreed with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu’s take on a previous panel that every other country has figured out how to get eligibility right and there is a clear path to making Section 101 work, it ultimately doesn’t matter much in cases like American Axle because the result was correct as it was a bad patent in his opinion. Many in the audience and on the panel strongly disagreed with this view, explaining that improperly using a Section 101 analysis to address issues more appropriate for Sections 103 and 112, for instance, creates confusion for all patent owners and practitioners and creates a body of ambiguous law.

While the USPTO has taken steps to make the eligibility analysis easier for examiners through its guidance under former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and through the “Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) pilot program, for instance, the courts remain muddled, said panelists. While some disagreed on whether eligibility rejections are still a problem in prosecution, Bob Stoll of Faegre Drinker, who moderated the panel, and others said at least the tools are there for the Office to avoid granting bad patents without having to rely so heavily on Section 101. However, that doesn’t much matter if the courts simply overturn those decisions. “If you look at the evolution of the European Patent Office, they tool what they used to do on the eligibility side and put it into inventive step—if we did that in the United States there would be a lot less pressure on 101,” Jones suggested.

Stoll next asked the panelists whether Senator Thom Tillis’ “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act,” introduced in August, or other legislation to address Section 101 reform, has any chance of passing in the next five years. Both Knowles and Jones agreed probably not. “Always bet against legislation,” Jones said. Knowles noted that the bill was introduced by Tillis without any cosponsors, which doesn’t bode well. “I’d like to see a cosponsor,” she said. However, Jones said it may be Tillis’ intention to simply set the stage for his agenda for next year by quickly introducing the bill, or to pressure the Supreme Court to finally act so that the bill becomes moot.

Knowles pointed attendees to an article she and her colleague, Anthony Prosser, authored in 2018, titled “Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. §101 by the U.S. Supreme Court”, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 144 (2018) that analyzed every iteration of the eligibility statute since 1790. She said the conclusion was that it could not be clearer that the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutionally applying the law, because “there are no exceptions” in the statute, and never have been.

With the Court and Congress seemingly stymied, “all the action [on 101] will be at the USPTO,” Jones said.



Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

6 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    September 16, 2022 01:38 pm

    Mr. Jones is — quite frankly — off his rocker.

    Even before the 2019 PEG by Dir. Iancu, the Office had been attempting to make sense of the Gordian Knot of 101 jurisprudence with “example claims.”

    Cleveland Clinic found out the hard way — with a dead-on following of what the Executive Branch guided — that such Carrie’s ZERO weight with the Judicial Branch.

    The larger point — in fact, the critical point — is that there is Only One Branch — per our explicit Constitution — that is empowered to write patent law.

    That one Branch is not the Executive Branch.
    That one Branch is ALSO not the Judicial Branch (no matter how much emphasis on “supreme” some may want to use).

  • [Avatar for Greg DeLassus]
    Greg DeLassus
    September 14, 2022 01:51 pm

    Why would it even matter if there is “action” on 101 at the USPTO. We can already get claims allowed. I dare say that most of us have figured out how to draft an application to get claims to grant in the face of Mayo/Alice. The problem is that those same claims fail quickly when asserted, regardless of their USPTO seal of approval.

    New USPTO actions cannot make the granted claims any more enforceable than they already are. The real 101 problem exists at the point of enforcement, not examination. The solution to that problem must come from either Congress or the courts.

  • [Avatar for Model 101]
    Model 101
    September 14, 2022 06:12 am

    Pro Say


    You are a fool to patent anything. All you’re doing is telling Big Tech how to do it. That’s why there are exceptions to 101.

    Jones and Stoll are stoolies.

  • [Avatar for mike]
    September 14, 2022 02:26 am

    Notwithstanding the permanent injunction mentioned above, if the USPTO cares about patent quality, they should care about preserving the status quo on continuation practice. Continuations help the patent office issue higher quality patents. For example, a continuation allows a patent applicant to introduce new prior art via IDS as it is learned over time, and the applicant can shape better claims to fit the new information as a result. Hence, the USPTO will be issuing higher quality patents originating from those continuation applications.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    September 13, 2022 10:10 pm

    Thickets? Thickets?


    The only actual IP thicket . . . is the innovation-killing, stop-all-competitors-at any-cost Big Tech thicket; who’s members have managed to bamboozle so many members of Congress.

    THAT’S the real thicket. The thicket that really matters.

    The thicket that Congress should be training their sights on.

  • [Avatar for concerned]
    September 13, 2022 07:09 pm

    Ms. Knowles makes a lot of great points in the attached (link) paper.

    SCOTUS is forcing the lower courts to follow them, not the constitution.

    There is no right without a remedy. Who supervises SCOTUS common law writings?

    What is Congress suppose to do? Write a law that says we meant what we wrote in 1952, follow it?

    Anon is correct: Strip SCOTUS of its authority on patent law.