Posts Tagged: "patentable subject matter"

It is safe to say that Artificial intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are hot topics and, as with any rapidly growing technological area on the industry side, there is also a rapidly growing number of patent applications being filed.In view of this, the European Patent Office (EPO) issued new guidance for examination for AI and ML patent applications in November 2018. Meanwhile, in January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) also issued revised guidance directed to what constitutes patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Although the USPTO’s revised guidance is more generally directed to software applications, at least one of the accompanying hypothetical examples (Example 39) is directed to the AI and ML space. Therefore, while there may be lingering concerns that AI and ML inventions will face extra scrutiny toward patentability due to their software-centric nature, the extra attention that the EPO and USPTO are paying toward AI and ML will likely help swing the pendulum of patentable subject matter toward a place that is in harmony with the current state of technology. The below analysis reviews the recent developments by the EPO and the USPTO to provide specific guidance on the topic of AI and ML.

There is little doubt that the way intellectual property is viewed and protected has transformed over the last 12 years, at least in the eyes of those who strategically appreciate both the importance and limitations of rights available today. Once upon a time, corporations would seek to patent as much innovation as possible, working to obtain gargantuan patent portfolios. These gargantuan patent portfolios often provided protection in numbers, and not necessarily in quality. But with the Supreme Court becoming more interested in patents since 2007, and with decisions in KSR, Bilski, Myriad, Mayo and Alice, many of these gigantic portfolios were reduced to rubble. There were several very large technology companies that led the charge both in the courts and on Capitol Hill to change U.S. patent laws in a way that many believed would weaken patent rights and ultimately the patent grant itself. These companies enjoyed tremendous success, and today, U.S. patent laws simply do not look anything like they did a mere 12 years ago. This became indisputably clear last year when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Oil States and said that a patent is merely a government franchise, which shocked many observers.

IPWatchdog’s most recent Patent Masters™ Symposium, held Monday and Tuesday March 25-26 in Washington, D.C., examined the state of the U.S. patent system and how we arrived here. Some concluded that Congress, rather than the courts, must take action to resolve the many conflicts that presently exist in the muddled judicial approach to patents that has been developed over the last two decades or the U.S. patent system will become irrelevant. While the mainstream narrative traditionally has held that patents impede innovation by making access to technology too difficult or expensive, the narrative that unfolded over the two days of discussions with some of the leading legal experts in the field told quite an opposite tale. Institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic are closing up their diagnostics shops due to uncertainty around Section 101 law in that area, and small businesses are unable to secure funding due to the many risks and expenses surrounding patent enforcement in a post-America Invents Act environment. These developments demonstrate that patents are vital to economic prosperity and that weak patents result in medical and other technologies simply not being made here. Many of the Masters lamented the fact that China and Europe currently have more reliable patent systems than the United States, precisely because those countries have begun to copy the previous U.S. approach, while we stray farther away from it. Alden Abbott, General Counsel of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, delivered a keynote speech in which he emphasized that uncertainty around the ability to obtain patents is also harming the U.S. competitive process.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) patents have made a strong comeback under the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. As the first graph above shows, allowances per office action have gone from an average of 15% before the guidance to 38% after the guidance. The increase occurred almost immediately after examiners were trained on the new guidance in January. For AI inventors concerned about the impact of the old Alice guidelines on the examination of AI-related applications, it looks like more hopeful times are ahead. The situation is grimmer for finance patents. The new guidance has not had any significant effect on allowances per office action. I reviewed a number of recent office actions under the new guidelines to see where the problem might be. It appears that most examiners in the finance art units 3691 to 3697 consider any improvement to a computer implemented financial process to be nothing more than an abstract idea. It doesn’t matter how novel or sophisticated the algorithms might be. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has been backing up this examiner perspective, with the affirmance rate for related appeals being more than 90%.

In Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which had held that a series of patents owned by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (“Natural Alternatives”) were directed to laws of nature and lacked an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, No. 18-1295, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7647 (Fed Cir. March 15, 2019) (Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Moore, Circuit Judge) (Concurring-in-part and dissenting in part, Reyna, Circuit Judge). The patents at issue were directed to the use of beta-alanine in dietary supplements to “increas[e] the anaerobic working capacity of muscle and other tissue.” After Natural Alternatives asserted the patents in multiple lawsuits in California, Creative Compounds, LLC (“Creative Compounds”) moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion. In performing its eligibility analysis, the district court accepted Natural Alternatives’ proposed claim construction and held that the asserted claims were patent ineligible. Natural Alternatives appealed, and the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.

On Monday, March 18, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated three decisions as precedential. Two of the three decisions—K40 Electronics LLC v. Escort Inc. (“K40 Electronics”),[AIA, live testimony at oral argument] and DePuy Synthes Products Inc. v. Medidea LLC (“DePuy Synthes Prods”) [AIA, live testimony at oral argument]—explained the limited circumstances in which live testimony may be allowed during PTAB proceedings. The third decision, Amazon.com Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA (“Amazon.com”) [AIA § 316(d), grounds that can be raised against substitute claims], affirmed that the PTAB has the authority to consider whether substitute claims are patentable on more grounds than just novelty and non-obviousness. The recent designations not only provide guidance to prospective litigants in PTAB proceedings, but develop the scope of PTAB litigation as a viable alternative to district court litigation.

Since the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank International, patent claims including software have faced a much higher barrier for receiving patents than any other field of invention. This has also infected specialized software, such as artificial intelligence (AI), which is both distressing and sad. It also explains why Chinese AI start-ups are receiving more funding than U.S. AI start-ups, a fact that should be sending a shockwave through Capitol Hill. Since Alice, patent examiners have presumptively classified software claims that can be implemented on a general computer as covering nothing more than an abstract idea, which means they are ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. To overcome this rejection, applicants must show why their claimed invention is something more than just a mere abstract idea.  Ironically, what constitutes something more is itself an abstract idea, and even what is an abstract idea is itself an abstract idea. In something straight from out of the Monty Python version of patent eligibility, these key terms – something more and abstract idea – have not been defined by the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit. As a result, most applications with software are routinely denied, which is understandable when frontline decision makers (i.e., patent examiners) are left without objective guidance. Subjectivity prevails.

On the afternoon of Wednesday, March 13, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held an oversight hearing of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office featuring testimony from and questioning of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. While this hearing was relatively short by Congressional standards, the Senate IP Subcommittee explored recent changes instituted during Iancu’s tenure as USPTO Director and also got into the debate on pharmaceutical patents—a topic that has been front and center for both houses of Congress in recent weeks.

Representative Steve Stivers (R-OH) and Representative Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act, which would in part restore injunctive relief as a remedy for patent infringement, in the U.S. House of Representatives in March of last year. While there has been much talk about closed-door discussions taking place on Capitol Hill recently around fixing Section 101 law, the House has not yet re-introduced the STRONGER Patents Act, and has thus far been focused on other issues this term. But Rep. Stivers seems confident that the Act has a chance this term, and says that this could be the consensus legislation the House needs. Read below for more on Rep. Stivers’ thoughts about patent reform in the 116th Congress, where the America Invents Act went wrong, and how we ensure the U.S. patent system is restored to number one.

The USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance provides that if an abstract idea represented in one or more claim elements is integrated into a practical application by other limitations in the claim, then the claim as a whole would not be directed to a judicial exception and, as such, would be considered patentable under section 101. The revised guidance states that “a claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” This would seem to be in line with the public policy underlying the judicial exception of not allowing a claim to preempt all means of achieving a desired result. Often, patent claims are drafted such as to contain claim elements directed to desired outcomes as opposed to specific ways of achieving the desired outcomes. Claim elements directed only to desired outcomes have the effect of preempting all ways of achieving the desired outcome, and, as such, are considered to “monopolize the judicial exception”. The public policy behind the judicial exception seeks to prevent the monopolization of the judicial exception by a claim reciting only the desired outcome.

The data shows that Section 101 allowances at the USPTO are on the rise after a long period of decline, but the 101 situation still remains “alarming,” said panelists during IPWatchdog’s webinar—”A Tale of Different Software Innovations: The Uneven Impact of Alice”—last Thursday, March 7. While Congress is currently considering ways to address the patent eligibility problem, the likelihood of a legislative fix this year is slim, said Bob Stoll of Drinker Biddle. “I believe we will see introduction of legislation on 101 as early as this summer, but I don’t anticipate anything being enacted,” Stoll said. “There’s a lot more going on to occupy their interests on the Hill.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is at it again, this time with what they refer to as a Save Alice campaign. The EFF does not like the Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in January 2019 and is charging USPTO Director Andrei Iancu with attempting to subvert the United States Supreme Court and essentially ignore Alice v. CLS Bank. These assertions are bogus, and truthfully, they are hardly worth the consideration of thoughtful individuals interested in a meaningful dialogue about the state of the U.S. patent system. Director Iancu has issued guidance that strictly follows exactly what the Supreme Court ruled in Alice, period. Over the years patent examiners, Administrative Patent Judges, district courts, and the Federal Circuit have dramatically expanded Alice. It was admitted in Alice that the “invention” could be coded over a weekend by a second-year college student, which means it was extremely trivial and not innovative.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics changed the landscape of what is considered patentable material in the context of genetic inventions. In the five years since Myriad, companies have pushed the boundaries of patenting certain types of genetic materials. Despite Myriad’s express statement that it was not considering “the patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered,” the courts have not yet established the contours of how much nucleotide sequences need to be altered in order to “create something new” in order to be patentable. However, as we discuss in the next section, we expect the Court to address these questions as biotechnology companies increasingly invest resources into emerging, expensive technologies involving genes and seek to protect their investments through patents.

I hold nine U.S. computer security device recovery and communication patents relating to Findmyphone technology, which helps owners display return or recovery information before or with the lock screen to help get their smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop back. In February, I was notified that my latest U.S. application overcame a 35 USC 101 objection following an amendment that explicitly referenced Director Andrei Iancu’s Section 101 Guidance. My story should provide some hope that the guidance can provide a clearer path for inventors on how to adjust their claims to meet the USPTO’s new high standards to achieve success and satisfy the requirements that Iancu is looking for to ensure stronger U.S. software patents.

The state of patent eligibility in America is shocking. Between the passage of the 1952 Patent Act and 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012), the patent eligibility threshold was an exceptionally low hurdle. A group of Senators and Representatives are currently considering a legislative fix to this patent eligibility debacle created by the Supreme Court and perpetuated by a Federal Circuit unwilling to define the contours of a sensible patent eligibility test. These talks, which are being held in closed-door roundtable format, will seek legislative language to introduce soon. It is anticipated that bills will be introduced in both the House and Senate sometime this summer. What those bills will look like seems to be genuinely up in the air—or perhaps it’s better to say open for discussion. If the discussion should turn to the one thing Congress could do that would have the most impact, the answer would be clear. In order to have the most immediate, positive impact Congress must expressly overrule Mayo. The root of all the patent eligibility evil lies with that single Supreme Court decision.