Tag Archives: USPTO

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

Life Science Patenting to Iancu – “We need help too!”

In his remarks presented at the recent 10th Annual Patent Law & Policy Conference at Georgetown University Law School, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu outlined the analytical framework for the new, eagerly awaited, PTO Guidance on patent eligible subject matter. Although … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kumar v. Iancu – The Dangers of an Overstuffed Preamble/Note on 37 CFR Part 4.

On November 7, 2018, the Fed. Cir. issued a summary affirmance of the PTAB’s interference decision of September 6, 2016, in Kumar v. Sung (Patent Interference 14/322,039) which found that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,541,422 were obvious over … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment