Category Archives: USPTO Practice and Policy

Athena v. Mayo Part II – Iancu v. The Federal Circuit(?)

The 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published on January 7th purported to revise the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is “directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas) … Continue reading

Posted in USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USTPO Releases Proposed Revised Section 101 Eligibility Guidelines

On January 7th, the Patent Office released proposed revised s. 101 eligibility examination guidelines for public comment. The proposed Guidelines would supersede MPEP 2016.04(II), the section that controls the analysis conducted at step 2A of the Mayo/Alice test  “to the … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Section 101, USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTO Issues Section 101 Memorandum after Vanda Decision

I have posted twice recently on the Fed. Cir.’s opinion in Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l, Ltd., Appeal no. 2016-2107 (Fed. Cir., April 18, 2018). The Fed. Cir. affirmed the district court’s ruling that Vanda’s claims in U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Circuit, Opinion Practice, Section 101, USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTO Proposes to Change Claim Construction Standard Used by PTAB

On May 9th, the USPTO released a short “Notice of proposed rulemaking” entitled “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”  In brief the Notice proposes to replace the broadest … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, PTAB, USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment