Posts Tagged: "USPTO Guidance"

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Tuesday, March 19, issued a memo for all patent examiners reiterating its current practices and resources for examining means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations. The memo is primarily focused on reminding examiners that they must create a clear record explaining their interpretation of such claims and points to various resources and training tools that are available to assist them.

Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its long-awaited Examination Guide on so-called generic.coms – domain names comprised of generic elements along with a generic top-level domain (such “gTLDs” include .com, .net, .org, .biz and .info). The Guide (No. 3-20, entitled “Generic Terms after USPTO v. Booking.com”) provides needed guidance to trademark examiners on how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in USPTO v. Booking.com B. V., 140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020); it also provides guidance to trademark applicants on the standards they can expect the USPTO to apply in considering whether their domain names are registrable as trademarks. Unfortunately, instead of faithfully applying the Supreme Court’s lesson about the importance of consumer perception in assessing whether a term functions as a trademark, the USPTO has relied on factors close to its discredited per se rule that will make it very difficult to register such marks.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Chief Economist today released a report, “Adjusting to Alice: USPTO patent examination outcomes after Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International,” outlining the effect of recent USPTO actions on patent eligibility determinations in certain technology areas most affected by the Alice decision. According to a USPTO press release, the conclusion is that these actions “have brought greater predictability and certainty” to these tech areas. “We have heard anecdotally from both examiners and applicants across the entire spectrum of technologies that our 2019 guidance on Section 101 greatly improved the analysis in this important area of patent law,” said Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO in the press release. “The Chief Economist’s report now confirms this general perception, especially with its critical finding that uncertainty decreased by a remarkable 44%.” 

It’s tough to fight on after losing an Alice appeal, but that’s just what most applicants are doing. An “Alice appeal” is an appeal of a patent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of statutory subject matter. The major field of these patents is business methods (class 705). More than half of business method applicants that are losing Alice appeals are taking action to keep their applications alive. The reasons for renewed hopes include the new 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance that came out in January, as well as the current movement in Congress to clarify 35 U.S.C. 101. With hope on the horizon, now is not the time to give up. The table below gives some recent examples of how both large and small applicants are continuing to prosecute their patent applications after losing an Alice appeal.

On Monday, April 1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics affirming the invalidity of patents covering medical diagnostic tests for determining a patient’s risk for cardiovascular disease. The decision, which is nonprecedential and was decided along similar lines to another 2017 decision between the two parties, is yet another depressing sign that U.S. patent law is woefully inadequate when it comes to supporting important innovations in the biotech fields. Of particular note is the Federal Circuit’s finding against Cleveland Clinic’s argument that the district court didn’t give appropriate deference to subject matter eligibility guidance published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1944 decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Although this argument related to USPTO guidelines published in 2016, it would seem to call into question the USPTO’s more recent revised subject matter eligibility guidance issued earlier this year by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. This gives voice to fears that the “Iancu Effect” on subject matter eligibility won’t matter much if the Federal Circuit and other courts don’t adhere to the USPTO’s views on patent eligibility under Section 101.