Quantum computing, a field that harnesses quantum physical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform complex computational tasks, is an emerging technology area. The uncertainties regarding the feasibility of technical features and the knowledge possessed by those of ordinary skill in the art in this area give rise to interesting enablement questions.Continue Reading PTAB Rulings Shed Light On Quantum Computing Patents
In Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, the Federal Circuit held that two scientists, Dr. Gordon Freeman and Dr. Clive Wood, should be included as joint inventors, along with Dr. Tasuku Honjo for patents related to immunotherapy for treating cancer. Identifying foundational discoveries underlying a patent claim could be considered a significant contribution that may rise to the level of inventorship even though the claims do not recite such discoveries. The decision clarifies inventorship rules in the context of pioneering therapeutic work, and suggests that no necessary contribution can be ignored in the inventorship analysis, even if the contribution was independently published before the application for patent.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Confirms Addition of Two Inventors of Groundbreaking Immunotherapies for Cancer
Introduction
This article is the fifth in a five-part series. Each of these articles relates to the state of machine-learning patentability in the United States during 2019. Each of these articles describe one case in which the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s Section-101 rejection of a machine-learning-based patent application’s claims. The first article of this series described the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), which was issued on January 7, 2019. The 2019 PEG changed the analysis provided by Examiners in rejecting patents under Section 101[1] of the patent laws, and by the PTAB in reviewing appeals from these Examiner rejections. This article describes another case where the PTAB applied the 2019 PEG to a machine-learning-based patent and concluded that the Examiner was wrong.
Continue Reading Machine Learning Patentability in 2019: 5 Cases Analyzed and Lessons Learned Part 5
On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act into law. The CARES Act is a $2 trillion economic stimulus and rescue package designed to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus, which has resulted in a level of societal and economic disruption that is unprecedented in living memory. Included in the bill is a temporary authorization to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the pandemic to toll, waive, adjust, or modify any timing deadline under the patent or trademark laws. While the USPTO Director has not pointed to any specific change that will be made under the new authorization, it is possible that at least some timing deadlines will be modified to accommodate hardships faced by stakeholders during this crisis.
Continue Reading Congress Gives Patent and Trademark Office Temporary Authorization to Move Deadlines in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic
Introduction
This article is the fourth in a five-part series. Each of these articles relates to the state of machine-learning patentability in the United States during 2019. Each of these articles describe one case in which the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s Section-101 rejection of a machine-learning-based patent application’s claims. The first article of this series described the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), which was issued on January 7, 2019. The 2019 PEG changed the analysis provided by Examiners in rejecting patents under Section 101[1] of the patent laws, and by the PTAB in reviewing appeals from these Examiner rejections. The previous article of this series described methods for overcoming 101 rejections where the PTAB has found that an abstract idea is “recited.” This article describes another case where the PTAB applied the 2019 PEG to a machine-learning-based patent and concluded that the Examiner was wrong.
Continue Reading Machine Learning Patentability in 2019: 5 Cases Analyzed and Lessons Learned Part 4
Introduction
This article is the third in a five-part series. Each of these articles relates to the state of machine-learning patentability in the United States during 2019. Each of these articles describe one case in which the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s Section 101 rejection of a machine-learning-based patent application’s claims. The first article of this series described the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), which was issued on January 7, 2019. The 2019 PEG changed the analysis provided by Examiners in rejecting patents under Section 101[1] of the patent laws, and by the PTAB in reviewing appeals from theses Examiner rejections. The second article of this series includes methods for overcoming rejections based on the “mental processes” category of abstract ideas, on an application for a “probabilistic programming compiler” that performs the seemingly 101-vulnerable function of “generat[ing] data-parallel inference code.” This article describes another case where the PTAB applied the 2019 PEG to a machine-learning-based patent and concluded that the Examiner was wrong.
Continue Reading Machine Learning Patentability in 2019: 5 Cases Analyzed and Lessons Learned Part 3
Introduction
This article is the second in a five-part series. Each of these articles relates to the state of machine-learning patentability in the United States during 2019. Each of these articles describe one case in which the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s Section-101 rejection of a machine-learning-based patent application’s claims. The first article of this series described the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), which was issued on January 7, 2019. The 2019 PEG changed the analysis provided by Examiners in rejecting patents under Section 101[1] of the patent laws, and by the PTAB in reviewing appeals from these Examiner rejections. The first article of this series also includes a case that illustrates the effect of reciting AI components in the claims of a patent application. The following section of this article describes another case where the PTAB applied the 2019 PEG to a machine-learning-based patent and concluded that the Examiner was wrong.
Continue Reading Machine Learning Patentability in 2019: 5 Cases Analyzed and Lessons Learned Part 2
Introduction
This article is the first of a five-part series of articles dealing with what patentability of machine learning looks like in 2019. This article begins the series by describing the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) in the context of the U.S. patent system. Then, this article – and the four following articles – will describe one of five cases in which Examiner’s rejections under Section 101 were reversed by the PTAB under this new 2019 PEG. Each of the five cases discussed deal with machine-learning patents, and may provide some insight into how the 2019 PEG affects the patentability of machine-learning, as well as software more broadly.
Continue Reading Machine Learning Patentability in 2019: 5 Cases Analyzed and Lessons Learned Part 1
The Federal Circuit weighed in on patent subject matter eligibility again last week, finding certain amino-acid containing dietary supplements, and related methods of use, to be patent eligible. In Natural Alternatives Int’l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the district court in the Southern District of California, which held that several sets of claims issued to Natural Alternatives International (“Natural”) were not directed to patentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101. The district court found the claims not patent eligible following a motion on the pleadings. Although the claims at issue included methods of treatment, composition, and process claims, this entry looks at the court’s decision with respect to methods. The decision could put some wind in the sails of developers of supplements and nutraceuticals.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Patent Subject-Matter Eligibility of Dietary Supplements