On May 9, 2014, the USPTO hosted a forum to receive public feedback on the patent subject matter eligibility guidance for examiners circulated on March 4, 2014. The USPTO heard formal presentations from ten speakers (including myself) and comments from audience members. Most speakers suggested alternative approaches to applying the Supreme Court’s “product of nature” and “law of nature” jurisprudence, and emphasized the dire consequence that the guidance could have on investment and innovation in the chemical, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.
While I expect the guidance to be modified eventually, one of my concerns is what to do in the meantime. Here are five points I came away with on that issue:
The USPTO is not likely to withdraw the guidance.
The USPTO is open to reconsidering, revising, and supplementing the guidance.
The USPTO would like to receive written public comments on the guidance ”by the end of June.”
The USPTO urges the public to suggest alternative analytical frameworks, additional or alternative factors to be considered, and additional examples of eligible and ineligible claims.
The USPTO advises applicants to respond to new § 101 rejections as they would to any other rejection, using the framework outlined in the guidance, and appealing rejections that are believed to be contrary to law.
I encourage all practitioners and stakeholders to review the USPTO guidance and provide thoughtful feedback to the USTPO as soon as possible. (You can find the USPTO patent eligibility guidelines, related information, and instructions for submitting comments on the USPTO’s Myriad-Mayo Guidance webpage.)
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.