Posts Tagged: "patent eligibility"

Panelists at IPWatchdog’s Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026 last week had some cynical views on chances for pending patent reform bills, while on Friday other experts offered insights into developments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with respect to review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases. Speaking on Thursday’s panel, titled “Capitol Hill & PTAB Politics: Innovation Policy, Congressional Oversight and Mid-term Elections,” panelists first addressed the chances of bills such as the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act advancing this year.

In 2014, the Supreme Court held that an invention is patent-ineligible if directed to “abstract ideas,” but that there was no need to define the term. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 221. Now, with the experience of more than a decade of confusing and unpredictable decision-making by lower courts trying to apply Alice, it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion…. The Court should grant the petition for certiorari filed by United States Automobile Association (USAA) in USAA v. PNC Bank on January 14, 2026. That will allow the Supreme Court to address the most basic of questions: What is an abstract idea?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, January 22, issued a precedential decision affirming a district court ruling that granted Google’s motion to dismiss a patent owner’s infringement suit for failure to state a claim. The CAFC agreed with the district court that the software claims in question were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court decision finding that Technology in Ariscale, LLC’s patent for a transmission signal decoding method was ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham.

As 2025 draws to a close, the intellectual property ecosystem faces a wave of transformative changes driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and evolving legislative priorities. From sweeping federal proposals aimed at harmonizing AI governance and overriding state laws, to new copyright and media integrity measures designed to address deepfakes and transparency, and finally to renewed momentum behind patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reform, these developments signal a pivotal moment for innovators, rights holders, and policymakers alike. This article explores three critical fronts shaping the future of IP: federal AI legislation and executive preemption, copyright accountability and media integrity, and the year-end outlook for patent reform—each redefining the balance between innovation, protection, and compliance.

As we wind down 2025 it is time to reflect on the year that was, and what the future will bring. This year was punctuated by a structural reset for the U.S. patent system. What unfolded was not just incremental reform, but a coordinated shift driven by leadership change, policy realignment, economic pressure, and accelerating adoption of AI—all converging to reshape how patents are examined, challenged, monetized, and managed. This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we explore the monumental changes and the biggest trends that impacted the patent and innovation industry during 2025, and which will play an important role in defining 2026.

The year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The magnitude and rate at which changes were implemented is unprecedented. The size and role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings like inter partes reviews (IPRs) was completely overhauled.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I have a conversation about patent eligibility with patent attorneys and IPWatchdog Advisory Committee members John Rogitz and Clint Mehall.  There can be little doubt that the U.S. patent system is at an inflection point. The growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is accelerating, and there is a growing understanding that dominating AI technologies is a matter of national and economic security. But as important as everyone seems to recognize AI innovation to be, there is widely diverging handling of AI innovations within government, with almost astonishingly different views between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, with the Legislative Branch simply missing in action.

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to grant a petition filed by Recentive Analytics, Inc. asking the Court to weigh in on whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) approach to patent eligibility for machine learning claims is improper. The petition was filed in October following an April 2025 decision by the CAFC that addressed an issue of first impression in the patent eligibility context; the opinion held that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released two memos meant to provide additional guidance around the use of patent subject matter eligibility declarations (SMEDs) for examiners, applicants and practitioners, particularly with respect to “applied technologies” in areas like artificial intelligence and medical diagnostics. The memos do not alter existing procedures and are effective immediately.

In our latest IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast, I spoke with Rob Sahr, shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and co-chair of our 2025 Life Sciences Masters™ program. Our conversation zeroed in on a hard truth the public rarely sees: moving a molecule from early discovery to an FDA-approved therapy requires a chain of scientific and economic miracles—and every one of them leans on a reliable patent system. In this conversation we discuss the extraordinary journey from molecule to medicine. Together, we explore how scientific breakthroughs depend not only on research and capital, but also on a stable and predictable patent system. From double patenting and government funding to judicial uncertainty and policy headwinds, our conversation dives into the fragile balance between innovation and patent policy—and the many scientific miracles required to bring new drugs to life.

In 1980, the Supreme Court decided Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the seminal Section 101 case holding that non-natural, man-made organisms are patent eligible. The Court’s decision paved the way for substantial investment in the then-nascent biotech industry. Forty-five years later, one would think that there’s little room to debate the patent eligibility of genetically engineered host cells—particularly a host cell that can produce non-native viral plasmids and proteins useful in making life-saving, gene-based medicines. But that debate is front and center in Regenxbio v. Sarepta, a pending appeal at the Federal Circuit that follows more recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that have turned Section 101 into a short-cut for bringing patent challenges under Sections 102, 103, and 112.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday affirmed a district court’s award of attorney’s fees to an accused infringer due to the “substantive weakness” of the patent owner’s litigation position. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna. Hawk Technology Systems LLC sued Castle Retail LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, claiming infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091, titled “High-quality, Reduced Data Rate Streaming Video Production and Monitoring System.” The district court ruled that the patent is directed to the abstract idea of “video storage display” under Alice Step one and that nothing transformed the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter at step two and granted Castle’s request for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In our latest IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast, we had a riveting and sometimes emotional conversation that unfolded around one of the most pressing issues in life sciences today: the journey of life-saving drugs from laboratory to patient. We discuss the pivotal role a strong patent system plays in this important journey with guest Sherry Knowles. Sherry is the founder of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies and former Senior Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel for GlaxoSmithKline. In addition to being one of the leading voices in the life sciences and patent industries, Sherry is also a cancer survivor. Among other things we discuss numerous patent system challenges facing innovator drug companies, the downward pressure generic drugs place on the industry and leading to important drugs becoming unavailable, the role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) with respect to significantly raising the cost of drugs for Americans, and policy influences and legislation on Capitol Hill. Sherry also shares her personal story and insights into why patents are more than just legal constructs—they are deeply personal lifelines.