26 July 2017
Washington DC
Reporter: Barney Dixon

USPTO presents patent subject matter eligibility viewpoints

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a new report detailing public viewpoints on the appropriate boundaries of patent-eligible subject matter.

The US Supreme Court has shifted the definitions of patent-eligible subject matter in recent years, with myriad decisions, including Mayo v Prometheus and Alice v CLS Bank, interpreting exceptions for abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.

A new two-part test was fashioned in Alice, but it has done little to clarify patent-eligible subject matter. In software, experts argued that the test is stifling innovation and that the quality of an invention, rather than its mode of implementation, should be the litmus test for protection.

Much of the feedback in the USPTO’s report—taken from two roundtables and a public consultation—confirmed the complexities of determining the boundaries of patent-eligible subject matter and many commentators were still split on its implementation.

Some respondents took the view that the Supreme Court’s decisions were merely a normal judicial process, with one respondent highlighting this as a representation of the separation of the executive and judicial branches.

The report said: “In his view, the court intentionally tried ‘to be parsimonious in its decisions’ and ‘tried very hard not to make blanket and broad statements’.”

Other respondents said that when applied properly, the two-part test leads to “sound outcomes” in patent eligibility.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation told the USPTO that, since Alice, software companies have outperformed the rest of the market and that research and development spending in software and the internet has increased by almost 11 percent in the 12 months since the two-part test was confirmed.

The USPTO also took responses that were critical of the Alice test and the Supreme Court’s decisions. One respondent alleged that the Mayo and Alice cases were “deeply flawed in terms of statutory legislative history and jurisprudence”.

Others said that there is “no constitutional or policy justification” for the test, and that the Supreme Court decisions were “arguably unconstitutional”.

Most respondents recommended some form of legislative change, with voices from the life sciences industry in particular championing this cause.

More news
The latest news from IPPro Patents
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
USPTO unveils new filing system
15 December 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has unveiled a new filing system that will launch in 2018 and be fully implemented by 2019
Innovation has thrived under AIA, according to tech association
14 December 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The High Tech Investors Alliance has responded to contentions that recent legislation and US Supreme Court decisions, including the Alice Corp v CLS Bank case, have weakened the US patent system
Patent perception must shift, says Schecter
13 December 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Public perception must shift if the US is to find feasible solutions to patent abuse, according to chief patent counsel at IBM Manny Schecter
Patent owners winning in IPR
12 December 2017 | New York | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Patent owners are winning more than losing in IPR proceedings, according to a study from law firm Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
High tech companies weigh in on Allergan deal
11 December 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Tech companies have argued that Allergan should not be allowed to circumvent the inter partes review process with its controversial patent deal with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
BlackBerry to pay $137 million to Nokia
08 December 2017 | Waterloo | Reporter: Barney Dixon
BlackBerry will pay $137 million to Nokia after the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration ruled against the company in a patent licensing dispute
ILO ruling “vote of no confidence” for Battistelli, says CSC
07 December 2017 | Munich | Reporter: Barney Dixon
In an open letter to the EPO’s heads of delegations, the CSC said that it interpreted the ILO’s decision as a “massive vote of no confidence in the president of the EPO"