Breaking: USPTO releases Section 101 report
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
To mark Pride month, Darren Smyth, cochair of IP Out, says the legal profession must not forget that some members still face exclusion and hostility
Lawyers say the opening of the Milan central division this month is likely to boost the so far 'modest' activity in Italy
Sharon Urias tells us why she still has to explain the difference between copyright and trademarks
Gift this article