Posts Tagged: "patentable subject matter"

It’s been over eight years since the Supreme Court issued its Bilski v Kappos decision, over six years since the Supreme Court issued its Mayo v. Prometheus decision and over four years since the Supreme Court issued its Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision.  In case anyone missed it, each of these three landmark cases was decided based on evidence on the record.  Thus, the Supreme Court not only contemplated the need for evidence when determining patent eligibility for abstract ideas of man-made origin, but wholly embraced the practice. Yet despite the Supreme Court’s trio of evidence-based holdings, it was February of this year before a single three-judge Federal Circuit panel definitively ruled on the evidence issue in Berkheimer v. HP, and it was the end of May before a majority of the Federal Circuit signed on to the idea that determining whether a man-made something is well-understood (or well-known), routine and conventional is an issue of fact that should be based on objective evidence. That’s the better part of a decade of the Federal Circuit wandering the desert.

2018 celebrates the six-year anniversary of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. On March 20, 2012, the Court handed down its ruling in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories. The decision was understood immediately to be a break from the immediate past, a product of the Court’s intention to clarify patent eligibility for a new era of biotech, pharma, and life science technologies. The Court hoped it would help clarify eligibility issues raised by new technologies that the drafters of Title 35 § 101, 102, and 103 hadn’t envisioned, but it’s done the opposite. Six years later, eligibility is harder to discern than ever, especially for diagnostic method claims.

InvestPic filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on June 19, 2018, making two arguments. First, that the original decision must be vacated and remanded because the claims considered by the district court and the panel were surrendered as the result of two reexaminations that ultimately resulted in the original claims being lost, with new claims awarded in their place. Second, that the panel’s decision is alleged to be inconsistent with decisions of prior panels, which found claims lacking improvements in the physical-realm could still be patent eligible improvements. This second argument goes on to assert that the ruling of the panel would effectively preclude groundbreaking innovations in the field of data science to be considered patent eligible moving forward.

The same factual analysis required in Berkheimer under step 2B should apply to fundamental economic practice analysis of claims under step 2A. The questions have similar factual underpinnings in both steps. Applicants, when faced with economic based claims and particularly blockchain-based claims, should argue that whether a claim is directed to a fundamental economic practice is a fact question that has three parts. (1) The claims should be directed to a “fundamental” economic practice; (2) The claims should be directed to practice it has been “long” practiced in the system of commerce; and (3) The claim should be directed to a “prevalent” practice in our system of commerce. Each of these fact questions requires supporting evidence which should fall in the same four categories outlined in the April 19, 2018 Memorandum.

This article examines Supreme Court and Federal Circuit analyses of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 where the patent claims at issue were directed to Life Sciences-related technologies. I first examine this topic in the context of composition of matter patent claims and then in the context of method claims. As reflected in the below discussion, while the § 101 case law is fairly straightforward with respect to composition claims, the case law is murkier when it comes to method claims.

Every year different groups provide rankings of patent prosecution law firms and a company’s patent count for the year.  Patent law firms will tout their rankings based upon the number of filings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the number of allowances they obtained for clients over the previous year.  And companies will boast about their patent prowess based upon the size of their portfolios. But things are changing. Innovative algorithms and even diagnostic methods may be easier and more effectively protected by trade secret.  Trade secret protection avoids the uncertainty of compliance with the vague patentability standard set forth by the Supreme Court.

While the subject matter of the speech was similar, this speech by Director Iancu was different. It was much more direct and forceful than any of his previous speeches. Iancu asked how inventors are supposed to know where to focus energy and effort without knowing what is patent eligible. That is an excellent question. One that Congress and the Courts should take to heart and thoroughly consider. Very real damage has been done to the U.S. patent system as the result of unnecessary uncertainty and an overly restrictive view of what is patent eligible in the U.S.

Yesterday I wrote about the United States Patent and Trademark Office filing a Director’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Remand in In re Intelligent Medical Objects, Inc., which was filed on June 5, 2018. This was not the only such motion filed by the USPTO. On June 4, 2018, the Office filed an Unopposed Motion for Remand in In re: Allscripts Software, LLC, which similarly asks the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to vacate the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and remand the appeal to the USPTO so the Board can reconsider eligibility rejections of the claims in question in light of Berkheimer.

Yesterday the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed a Director’s Unopposed Motion to Vacate and Remand in In re Intelligent Medical Objects, Inc. After the decision of the Board the Federal Circuit decided Berkheimer, which Director Iancu believes requires the Board’s original decision to be vacated and reconsidered in light of both Berkheimer and USPTO guidance relating to Berkheimer.

This case and the passage above merely confirms what we have long known to be true. The magnitude of the innovation does not matter. Whether there is an innovation does not matter. Certain advances, certain innovations, are simply not patentable in America. No longer is “anything made by man under the sun” patent eligible.

Four years after the Alice decision, we seem to just now be detecting the full impact of the decision. The initial response by the USPTO resulted in an somewhat expected increase in the percentage of applications with eligibility rejections from business-method art units. Three years after Alice, eligibility rejections became much more common across the remaining computer-related technology centers (i.e. 2100, 2400, and 2600)… The sudden increase in eligibility rejections from other computer-related technology centers may have a number of causes. For example, case law from the Federal Circuit and the USTPO began to expanded the application of Alice to inventions that appear abstract despite not being directed to a traditional business-method concept… The increase in the percentage of office actions with eligibility rejections in TC 2100 was much higher than the increase in other computer related technology centers TC 2400 and TC 2600. Given that TC 2100 is a primarily software-focused technology center, this trend discrepancy suggests that post-Alice eligibility assessments performed by software examiners present increased challenges for patenting software based inventions.

Why did the Supreme Court intentionally destroy the U.S. patent system? That is a question many have been asking themselves in the wake of more than a decade of dubious decisions that continually erode patent rights and limit what is patent eligible… It is because of the Supreme Court that high-tech startups are unable to obtain patent protection necessary to attract investors… Investors simply aren’t interested in many U.S. high-tech startups because they know many patents in the software, biotech and medical arenas are extremely difficult to obtain, and even if obtained will be impossible to keep thanks to the curtailing of what is patent eligible by the Supreme Court… It is time for Congress to take control of America’s patent policy and legislatively reform Section 101.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, No. 2016-2707, addresses the complicated topic of patent eligibility in the pharmaceutical space. Much of the decision compares Vanda’s claims to those found ineligible for patent protection in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). While the ultimate patentability conclusions are opposite, the claims in Vanda and Mayo are very similar, highlighting the thin—and often unpredictable—line that divides eligible and ineligible subject matter. Generic drug manufacturers must account for this unpredictability in gauging their litigation risks.

Director Iancu: “But for our purposes what I know for a fact is that in order to incentivize American innovation whether it’s artificial intelligence, DNA processing, or anything else we need to have a robust predictable reliable intellectual property system here at home. And I do worry that the current state of Section 101 in patentable subject matter weakens the robustness of our IP system in the affected areas. And if industry cannot predict in a relatively reliable way whether their investments will be protected from an intellectual property point of view I think that will result in less investment, less growth, fewer jobs created in the affected industries. So I do think it is critically important for our economy. And again whatever industry we’re talking about and whatever industry we want to grow it’s critically important to have a strong reliable and predictable intellectual property system.”

The patents discussed below are all landmark inventions and were conceived by inventors inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame (NIHF). Would these ground-breaking inventions, that helped set the course of humanity, be patentable today? … The point is that at first blush it’s not readily clear whether these patents would be found subject matter eligible, demonstrating that the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court with respect to patent subject matter eligibility has few bounds – even impacting the most celebrated inventions of our most honored inventors… If we cannot determine with reasonable certainty how all of these inventions would fare if judged under recent Supreme Court case law, then no one can truly teach Patent Subject Matter Eligibility 101.