Five Things You Should Know About the USPTO Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines

14 March 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

The new USPTO patent subject matter eligibility guidelines set forth a detailed analytical framework for evaluating whether claims satisfy the patent subject matter eligibility requirement of 35 USC § 101. If you are an examiner, patent agent, patent attorney, or applicant overseeing patent portfolios in chemical, biotechnology, or life sciences technologies, you should read and study the Guidelines. (You can start with this summary.) But even if the Guidelines are not likely to impact your daily practice, there are five things you should know about them. 

5. The Guidelines do not apply to claims that raise “abstract idea” issues.

If your patents typically face subject matter eligibility issues for allegedly reciting abstract ideas, the Guidelines won’t help or hurt you. Instead, the Guidelines provide that ”claims reciting an abstract idea … should continue to be analyzed for subject matter eligibility using the existing guidance in MPEP § 2106(II).”

4. The Guidelines apply to all types of claims.

Other than the “abstract idea” exception, the Guidelines apply to all types of claims that “recite or involve laws of nature/natural principles, natural phenomena, and/or natural products.” This means that even article of manufacture and composition claims are subject to analysis under the Guidelines. (If you missed it, please see this article about the treatment of pharmaceutical compositions under the Guidelines.)

3. The Guidelines do not shed much new light on Prometheus-type claims.

Although the Guidelines apply to all types of claims, they do not include any new examples on diagnostic or personalized medicine type claims, although they repeat some examples from the initial Prometheus guidelines.

2. The Guidelines define “natural product” broadly.

The Guidelines define “natural product” as including “chemicals derived from natural sources” and “other substances found in or derived from nature.” The Guidelines read the Myriad and Funk Brothers Supreme  Court decisions together, and provide that a product must be both “non-naturally occurring” and “markedly different in structure from naturally occurring products” in order to be patent eligible.

1. The Guidelines are not the final word on patent subject matter eligibility.

The Guidelines reflect the USPTO’s interpretation of Supreme Court case law addressing patent subject matter eligibility. As such, the Guidelines are subject to challenge in a court proceeding and are subject to modification by future court decisions. If the Guidelines are used to reject your claims, and you disagree with the USPTO’s interpretation and application of governing law, you should consider appealing the rejection to the Federal Circuit.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ