John Squires, the recently anointed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has determined that a machine learning (ML) patent application met the standard for patent subject matter eligibility, an outcome that seems to bode well for ML-based patent applications going forward.
John Squires, the recently anointed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has determined that a machine learning patent application met the standard for patent subject matter eligibility, an outcome that seems to bode well for ML-based patent applications going forward.
John Squires, the recently anointed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has determined that a machine learning (ML) patent application met the standard for patent subject matter eligibility, an outcome that seems to bode well for ML-based patent applications going forward.
Patent reform in the U.S. revolves largely around the subject matter eligibility question, but Congress is reluctant to intervene – a predicament addressed recently by Andrei Iancu, formerly the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has provided updated guidance on the question of patent subject matter eligibility for inventions that rely on artificial intelligence, stating that a patent claim that does little more than recite an abstract idea is not subject-matter eligible.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has provided updated guidance on the question of patent subject matter eligibility for inventions that rely on artificial intelligence, stating that a patent claim that does little more than recite an abstract idea is not subject-matter eligible.
Alivecor Inc. has nudged the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) into issuing a limited exclusion order for products by Apple Inc. that are said to violate patents held by Alivecor, but there is one more stage gate to go for Alivecor. The ITC order notes that the exclusion won’t go into force until resolution of an inter partes review (IPR) involving the two firms, a process that could devour as much as a year and a half before a resolution is available.
U.S. Supreme Court case law on patent subject matter eligibility has provoked several attempts by Congress to rewrite the statute, but there are lingering concerns about the latest proposal, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022. Among these concerns is that the revised set of exceptions to subject matter eligibility might take time to work through both in terms of litigation and patent prosecution, but the bill has the support of a number of stakeholders, including two former commissioners of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
Makers of biotech therapies and in vitro diagnostics may be understandably weary of hearing about patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act, but Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is prepared to take another swipe at the problem. Tillis announced Aug. 3 that the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022 is intended to reverse some of the deleterious effects of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on Section 101 questions, a proposal that may be the last, best chance to address what many believe is a fundamentally broken judicial understanding of subject matter eligibility.
For companies in the life sciences, patent subject matter eligibility has acquired a bad reputation, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has attempted to provide administrative workarounds to the problem. PTO director Kathi Vidal said recently, however, that the agency intends to revisit its guidance, just one of several steps the PTO is taking to eliminate some of the drag on patent applications in the U.S.
