Posts Tagged: "patent eligible"

Judicial rulings have muddied the waters of patent eligibility, with judges themselves expressing uncertainty. In the case, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge Kimberly Moore openly shared the challenge of applying Section 101 consistently, explaining that “the majority’s blended 101/112 analysis expands § 101, converts factual issues into legal ones and is certain to cause confusion for future cases.” This haze has driven innovators to tread cautiously, often sidelining potential patents for fear of 101 rejections—stifling the American dream of groundbreaking innovation. Stakeholders craft tactics to dodge these pitfalls while lawmakers propose reforms.

The Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi on May 18, 2023, nearly nine years after its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Amgen was concerned with the enablement statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 112. In comparison, Alice was concerned with the eligibility statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and has been highly criticized for creating a mess of patent eligibility. At first glance, these cases are distinguishable from one another, since they deal with different aspects of the patent laws. However, statutory interpretation and analysis should be the same in both instances.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the petition for certiorari brought by CareDX, Inc. in May asking it to review a 2022 decision holding certain claims of its patents directed to detection levels of donor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the blood of an organ transplant patient patent ineligible. Justice Bret Kavanaugh would have granted the petition, according to the Order List.

PERA is no doubt an ambitious bill. In terms of its design, the proposed legislation attempts to deal with each of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice, Mayo and Myriad, plus all of their progeny applications thereafter engendered by the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all the way down to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining corp. In a nutshell, the bill, if passed, would return us to a time when Bilski was the law of the land, which will no doubt be welcomed by many innovators.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a field of computer science that creates software or models that mimic human reasoning or inference. Machine learning is a subset of AI which uses algorithms trained on massive amounts of data to allow the computer to learn with gradually improving accuracy without explicitly being programmed. The biopharmaceutical and healthcare fields produce massive amounts of data, including properties and characteristics of drug compounds, biological, genomic, and clinical data, efficacy of treatments, adverse events and risks, and electronic health records. The data may come from many sources, both public and proprietary. AI systems trained on such data can streamline and optimize the drug development process, including drug discovery, diagnosing diseases, identifying treatments and risks, designing clinical trials, and predicting safety and efficacy profiles, leading to increasing efficiency and reducing costs. 

Confusion and misunderstanding among some independent inventors might slow or stall progress of the excellent eligibility reform bill recently introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC). Titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the legislation would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications.

It is time to set the record straight. For reasons I don’t understand, many inventors are just not being truthful about the provisions of patent reform bills now pending in Congress. In fact, some in the independent inventor community are attempting to rally support to kill the overwhelmingly pro-patent, pro-innovation, patent eligibility bill now pending. This is an enormous mistake that will have tragic consequences unless those who have the most to lose become willing to accept a win, even if that win does not provide them with 100% of what they want.

U.S. patent practitioners have had a rocky relationship with the once-straightforward patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101 in recent years. Decisions such as Mayo and Alice upended the status quo, muddying the threshold test for patent subject matter eligibility. When dealing with difficult 101 rejections under this new status quo, it can sometimes help to think outside of the box about how to overcome a given rejection. This article presents a potential unlabeled “Step Zero” of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis which could help you overcome or avoid 101 rejections.

Recently, it has come to my attention that a system that utilizes a camera to capture images and software to run facial recognition is being rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as an abstract idea. Why? Well, it unfortunately seems that the reason is simply because the purpose of this very tangible, working system is to identify people and charge them a fare. Because money is overtly involved, for reasons that make no rational sense, this is being deemed a business method, despite the facial recognition technology—and even though this is a clean, streamlined approach for conducting commerce.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s dismissal of Realtime Data, LLC’s patent infringement claims based on invalidity of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In a previous ruling, the CAFC sent the case back to the district court asking for a more fleshed out Section 101 analysis. Judge Pauline Newman dissented to today’s judgment, calling current eligibility jurisprudence a “morass” and saying she would have remanded the case for determination of validity under Section 112, or possibly Sections 102 and 103.

Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been effective tools at the pleading stage for parties defending allegations of patent infringement. Defendants often attempt to avoid the costs of litigation by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6), seeking to invalidate the asserted patent(s) on the grounds that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter — such as an “abstract idea.” Previously, a key tactic for plaintiffs to overcome such “Section 101 motions” was by amending the complaint and annexing an expert declaration. Recently, however, this strategy has been called into question due to a recent decision in Marble VOIP Partners LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,

On July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated all claims from five SNIPR patents. In reversing, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB erroneously subjected SNIPR’s patents to interference proceedings that Congress meant to eliminate when it enacted the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.

In a precedential decision authored by Judge Tiffany Cunningham on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that two patents for methods of connecting users based on their answers to polling questions were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 and 10,936,685 are owned by Trinity Info Media, LLC and are titled “Poll-Based Networking System.” The U.S. District court for the Central District of California granted Covalent, Inc.’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “matching users who gave corresponding answers to a question” and did not contain an inventive concept.

On the evening of July 5, inventor advocacy group US Inventor hosted a webinar to discuss the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) recently introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE). The featured guest speaker was Retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, who has been involved in the development of PERA’s draft legislative text and has personally supported PERA as an important step in “reviv[ing] the faltering U.S. innovation system” by abrogating the series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that greatly expanded judicial exceptions to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.