Menu
In the latest turn of events in the Athena v. Mayo Supreme Court petition1, Mayo Collaborative Services filed its opposition brief arguing, in essence, that the Court has already spoken on patent eligibility, the Court should leave policy considerations to Congress, and lower courts are not confused about the law. In this closely watched case, Athena Diagnostics… Read more »
In American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings1, the Federal Circuit was tasked with determining whether claims directed to a method of manufacturing that utilize at least one, and possible other, natural laws, are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As detailed in the dissent by Judge Moore, the Federal Circuit appears to do… Read more »
In the wake of several multi-day USPTO outages, the USPTO has transition a critical part of its Patent Application Locating and Monitoring (PALM) application to “a new, more modern, stable and resilient server platform” that “is 1,000 times faster, 20 times more efficient, and far more stable and less prone to failure.”1 The USPTO’s previous… Read more »
In several previous blog posts, we discussed the USPTO’s revised guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including a review of potential inconsistencies between the USPTO guidance and Mayo and a recent Federal Circuit decision, which did not defer to the USPTO guidance. We ended on a hopeful note that some combination of the courts,… Read more »
In our January Blog Post related to the January 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“the Guidance”), and our subsequent Blog Post in February , we noted that it was unclear how the courts will view issued personalized medicine claims examined under the Guidance, as it appeared that the USPTO may want to push the courts to reexamine the… Read more »
In our January 22, 2019 Blog Post related to the January 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“the Guidance”), we noted that in Prong Two of Step 2A of the Guidance, an Examiner is tasked with evaluating “whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.”1 More importantly, we… Read more »
The USPTO’s recently revised guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“the Guidance”),1 provides some clarity to Examiners and Applicants as to what constitutes an “abstract idea.” While the Guidance identifies several abstract ideas that fall within the scope of a “Judicial Exception” during Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A of the… Read more »
On January 4, 2019, the USPTO announced revised guidance taking effect on January 7, 2019, for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”). The revised guidance supersedes all versions of the USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.” Under the revised guidance, the USPTO outlined… Read more »
On January 4, 2019, the USPTO announced guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to computer-implemented inventions (“Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112”), which took effect on January 7, 2019. The Guidance stated that for a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose… Read more »
What is the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX)? The Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) is a program that provides for electronic transmission of priority documents to and from participating foreign Intellectual Property (IP) Offices. There is no fee for this service. For many foreign IP Offices, the USPTO exchanges priority documents via the Priority Document… Read more »
Tel: (703) 712-8531
Address
Medler Ferro Woodhouse & Mills PLLC
8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1060
McLean, VA 22102
Phone and Fax
tel: (703) 712-8531
fax: (703) 712-8525
Address
info@medlerferro.com