Posts Tagged ‘USPTO’

Mayo Meet Alice Meet Myriad – Fed. Cir. Appreciates “Abstract Art”

Thursday, December 18th, 2014

On December 20th, a panel of the Fed. Cir. of Judges Dyk, Clevinger and Prost – Dyk writing – found that six claims in Myriad’s dwindling arsenal of BRACA1 and 2 patents were invalid as claiming non-statutory subject matter. (University of Utah Res. Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., Appeal No. 2014-1361, -1366 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 20, 2014)). (A copy of the decision is found at the end of this post.) The decision makes more sense than some commentators have given it credit for, but it still reads like the plot of the last Matrix installment.

First, the panel invalidated four composition of matter claims directed to ssDNA segments useful to amplify the BRACA genes or portions thereof, when used as PCR primers, or to identify specific areas of the genes if used as probes. These were claims in US Pat. Nos. 5,747,282 and 5,837,492.

(more…)

Revised 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Released by PTO

Tuesday, December 16th, 2014

On Monday, December 15th, the Patent Office released revised “Guidance” on the evaluation of subject matter patent-eligibility under s. 101. (A copy is available at the end of this post.) The “Guidance” is an attempt to unify the analyses that were set forth in earlier Guidelines post-Mayo and post-Alice, and apply to all classes of inventions. After stripping away the introductory material, and the case law summaries, there are only a few pages of substantive guidance.

The most important change to the notorious March 4th “Life Sciences Guidelines” is summarized in the Flowchart on page 9 and in section 3B. If a composition is a “nature-based product,” it is analyzed in step 2B to see if it is “markedly different” from “its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state.” However, the revised Guidance pointedly drops the requirement that the product be structurally different. Now “markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function and/or other properties and will be evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis.” That is a big “or”:

(more…)

Section 101 at AIPLA

Friday, October 24th, 2014

The increasingly intense conversation about patentable subject matter post-Mayo, Myriad and Alice got off to a slow start at the “Partnering for Patents” meeting held at the PTO on Wednesday. The meeting was a scattering of in-house PTO reports and wish-lists, with some “outside presenters.” Alan Hirschfeld spoke briefly about the Alice decision and the first round of PTO Guidelines, but he offered nothing in the way of new insights, simply reminding the audience that the Guidelines should not be considered final and that the process would be reiterative.

Over at the big AIPLA Annual Meeting in DC, Karen Canady moderated a session today that covered topics ranging from post-grant proceedings under AIA to ethics. Of course the s. 101 presentation by Donna Meuth of Eisai and David Wille of BakerBotts was of the most interest to me. Donna used an example of the rejection of claims involving natural products that Hans Sauer of BIO posted on this website. The claims to the compound, a composition containing it, and its use to treat three types of cancer were all rejected as involving a natural product and as impermissibly tying up the building blocks of human ingenuity. Of course, many in the audience noted that that was what patents were intended to do, but that was cold comfort to the applicant, who failed every one of the test factors in the Guidelines but one.

David Wille attempted a look into the thought processes of the judges applying Alice in district court decisions. He felt that the key to “success” may lie in keeping the focus on the manipulation of real matter, like checks, and emphasizing that the focused claims are not directed to fundamental economic practices, but to the transformation of specific types of data. I think he referred to success as passing the “technological arts test.” The significance of these lessons is far from clear, but they are a start. Still, I feel like the narrator in the Dylan song who laments: “It’s not dark out yet, but its getting there.”

Partnering In Patents XXI Program At USPTO Oct 22nd

Tuesday, October 21st, 2014

Since I am suffering from section 101 fatigue, tomorrow I will be speaking at this program on indefiniteness post-Nautilus. However, this meeting gets interesting earlier in the afternoon when Andrew Hirschfeld presents on “Updates on 101 training and Examiner Guidance” (working title) followed by Michael Stein, the “AIPLA Speaker” whose topic is “Understanding Patent Eligibility After Alice, Practical Tips for Practitioners and Examiners.”

The big question for my computer law and software brethren is whether or not there is any patent eligibility post-Alice for the inventions claimed in most of their pending applications? A quick survey by one of my partners indicates that over 90% of the applications filed by one big “software company” in Class 705 (Data Processing; Financial, Business Practice, Management, or Cost/Price Determination) that have received Office Actions in August received 101 rejections. As a stock car race driver once said to me when he was boxed in and about to “take the wall,” “I had nowhere to go but up.”