USPTO Suggests New Effort to Clarify Patent Eligibility

USPTO Director Iancu recently proposed new patent eligibility guidelines at the quarterly meeting of the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC). Iancu noted that clarity is needed both by examiners and applicants asking, "how can a claim be novel enough to pass 102 and nonobvious enough to pass 103, yet lack an "inventive concept" and therefore fail 101? Or, how can a claim be concrete enough so that one of skill in the art can make it without undue experimentation, and pass 112, yet abstract enough to fail 101? How can something concrete be abstract?" Hopefully the new guidelines will address these issues and give some much needed clarity.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Supreme Court Holds that Tribal Sovereign Immunity Cannot Be Used to Shield Against USPTO Proceed...

Drug company Allergan transferred its Restasis drug patents to a Mohawk tribe in upstate NY. Under the deal, Allergan paid the Indian tribe $13.75 million and agreed to further payment of $15 million in annual royalties while the patents were in force. In exchange, the tribe agreed to lease the patents back to Allergan and promised to claim sovereign immunity in any USPTO patent challenges. Under the law, Indian tribes possess inherent sovereignty; however, this sovereignty may be limited through treaty or federal statute. Additionally, Congress possesses plenary power over tribes, allowing it to alter or abolish tribal sovereignty at will. The US Supreme Court recently held that Indian tribes cannot use sovereign immunity to shield themselves from patent challenges brought within the USPTO. The court did not decide whether sovereign immunity claims could be used by states.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Supreme Court to Hear On-Sale Bar Case

The Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiori in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. The court will be asked to determine whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) bars an inventor from selling to a third party when that third party has a duty of confidentiality to the seller. Such an "on-sale" bar would prevent the inventor or assignee from filing a patent for that invention.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Update: Supreme Court holds that that a secret sale qualifies as prior art.

CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE