Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Breaking: USPTO releases Section 101 report

Kathi Vidal
Kathi Vidal

The patent office report found that stakeholders were still divided over subject matter eligibility but broadly wanted clarity

The USPTO released a report on the state of subject matter eligibility today, June 28.

The office said stakeholders across the spectrum agreed that US patent eligibility law, which is set out in Section 101 under Title 35 of the US Code, needed to be clearer, more predictable and consistently applied. It also confirmed that different stakeholders maintained different views on the matter.

The USPTO published the document in response to a request from senators Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Mazie Hirono, and Tom Cotton in March 2021.

The senators had asked the office to publish a request for information on the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the US, evaluate the responses, and provide them with a detailed summary of its findings.

The report showed that certain stakeholders supported the current state of Section 101 law because it helped them fight abusive and costly litigation involving software patents they felt were too broad.

Some life sciences and patient advocacy organisations also supported the US’s 101 framework because it bolstered access to medical technologies, the report stated.

The USPTO said in its report that other stakeholders were critical of the law because they felt it inhibited investment in new technologies and companies, especially in life sciences.

Some start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises argued that Section 101 law as it stood lowered access to private risk capital and undermined innovation.

“Though these results were not surprising, the USPTO will continue to solicit feedback from stakeholders, including through listening sessions,” the report stated.

The topic of Section 101 gained traction in the US after the Supreme Court issued its rulings on Mayo, Myriad and Alice between 2012 and 2014. These edicts made it harder for companies to obtain diagnostics, gene sequencing, software and other related patents.

The Supreme Court is now deciding whether to hear American Axle v Neapco. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated American Axle’s drive shaft patent on the basis that it was directed towards a law of nature.

Counsel previously told Managing IP that they hoped the report would drive legislative change on Section 101.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library