March 22, 2024
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†
The subject matter eligibility threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 101 continues to stymie efforts at patent enforcement and procurement, particularly in the fields of software and diagnostics. Under § 101, an invention is eligible for a patent if it is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”
Calls to “do something” have been a steady chorus for several years. What is happening now?
Some pin their hopes on legislative reform. The latest effort was "The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023" (PERA 2023). This bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in June 2023. This bill would replace the Alice/Mayo framework and set out the only allowable exceptions in the statute: mathematical formula by itself, mental process, unmodified human gene as it exists in the human body, or an unmodified natural material as that material occurs in nature. There would be no more “judicial exceptions” that have developed in the case law. PERA 2023 would also exclude from patentability any “substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic” process. Legislative efforts, however, will also create their own uncertainty.
Others hold out hope for clarification by the Supreme Court. But the highest court thus far denied all petitions for certiorari on subject matter eligibility since issuing its 2014 opinion in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. This despite urging by the Solicitor for the Court to hear a case on the application of Alice.
Meanwhile at the USPTO, it attempts to provide guidance for examiners and the public at least understand how claims will be treated during prosecution. That guidance, however, is not binding on courts. The USPTO's current eligibility guidance is in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (M.P.E.P.), see Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). It includes several examples which are worth becoming familiar with if you are engaged in patent drafting and prosecution.
Thus, we remain in a 101 “Land of the Lost” until legislative reform, court clarification, or both happen.
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.