Adjusting to Alice: USPTO’s View of Its Examination Guidelines

28 April 2020 Personalized Medicine Bulletin Blog
Author(s): Antoinette F. Konski

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (“Alice”) held that technologies that merely implemented an abstract idea with a generic computer were not eligible for patent protection. As a result, the patent-eligibility of personalized medicine diagnostics and therapies that may rely on computers or mental analysis to diagnose disease or analyze medical information faced a new standard for patent-eligibility. (See, e.g., Federal Circuit Frames Test for Patent-Eligibility and USPTO Updates Guidance on Patent-Eligibility of Personalized Therapies.)

In the years following the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, the Federal Circuit issued several decisions applying the Supreme Court’s Alice decision and the USPTO issued several examination guidances, (including an April 2018 memorandum and a January 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG)) to assist the examination of claims that could be determined to be abstract ideas.

On April 23rd, 2020, the Office of the Chief Economist of the USPTO reported that its memorandum and the 2019 PEG decreased patent examination uncertainty in Alice-affected technologies. Adjusting to Alice: USPTO patent examination outcomes after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (“Report”). The decrease in uncertainty was measured by four key statistics for Alice-affected technologies:

  1. The likelihood of patent applicants receiving a first office action with a rejection for patent-ineligible subject matter increased by 31% in the 18 months following Alice;

  2. Uncertainty in patent examination as measured by variability in patent subject matter eligibility determinations across examiners in the first action stage of examination increased by 26% in the 18 months following Alice;

  3. One year after the release of the USPTO’s 2019 PEG, the likelihood of receiving a first office action with a rejection for patent-ineligible subject matter had decreased by 25%; and

  4. Uncertainty in patent examination decreased by 44% in the 12 months following the issuance of the 2019 PEG.

Report at page 1.

Practice Tip

According to the USPTO, these key statistics establish that “the USPTO’s efforts to clarify the Alice standard have substantially offset the uncertainty created by Alice.” Report at page 4. As a patent practitioner in Alice-associated technologies and technologies that serve personalized medicine, the USPTO’s Report confirms my personal experience that when the patent claims are aligned with the format of patent-eligible claims set forth in the USPTO’s subject matter guidance documents, first office action rejections based on lack of subject matter eligibility are reduced or often can be overcome during examination. Patent applicants also are encouraged to ask for the assistance of a “101 specialist” and discuss the claims with the examiner and specialist.

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.