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
EU Commission should prohibit use-based SEP licensing, says ACT
19 October 2017 | Brussels | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The App Association has called on the European Commission to prohibit any form of use-based pricing of technology essential to the internet of things
SUEPO confirms position on Campinos election
19 October 2017 | The Hague | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The Staff Union of the European Patent Office has confirmed its official position on the election of António Campinos as president of the European Patent Office
Withers & Rogers adds ten trainee attorneys
19 October 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
International law firm Withers & Rogers has added ten new trainee attorneys covering both patents and trademarks
Apple to pay $439 million for FaceTime infringement
18 October 2017 | Texas | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Apple must pay VirnetX $439 million for infringing VirnetX patents with its FaceTime application
Restasis patents invalidated at Texas court
17 October 2017 | Texas | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Four patents relating to Allergan’s Restasis dry eye treatment have been invalidated by a US court, despite the pharmaceutical company’s patent transfer agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
Businesses should prepare for UPC, despite uncertainty
17 October 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Businesses should make preparations for the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent, despite mounting uncertainty surrounding when, if at all, the court will come into effect
Patent ‘irrationality’ causes a negative image of patents
16 October 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Spectators are far more accepting of copyright and trademarks than they are of patents because of “irrationality”, according to Sir Robin Jacob