USPTO Asks for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Comments by July 31, 2014

USPTO Asks for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Comments by July 31, 2014

In a June 30, 2014 Federal Register notice, the USPTO requested public comments by July 31, 2014  on patent subject matter eligibility under the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International and on the USPTO’s March 4, 2014 “Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products.”

USPTO Extends Deadline to Comment On Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis

USPTO Extends Deadline to Comment On Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis

Yesterday at BIO’s session entitled “Patent-Eligibility from the Trenches: Practical Implications of the Supreme Court’s Prometheus (Mayo) and Myriad Decisions” a panel of experts and an engagedaudience discussed the controversial USPTO “Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products” (2014 Guidance) and its implications for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

How the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank Undermines the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, finding that patents directed to “a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’” were invalid as being drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

USPTO Finally Updates Patent Term Adjustment Calculator–Sort Of

USPTO Finally Updates Patent Term Adjustment Calculator–Sort Of

In a Federal Register Notice issued May 15, 2014, the USPTO announced that its Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculator finally has been updated to implement the changes to the PTA statute embodied in the Technical Corrections Act which was enacted on January 13, 2013, but has not yet been updated to implement the changes required by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Novartis v. Lee.