Since having been sworn in as the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in February 2018, Andrei Iancu has led the charge to improve predictability of patent-eligible subject matter. In his speech at the Intellectual Property Owners’ (IPO) Association’s annual meeting in Chicago in late September 2018, the director told IPO’s membership that the USPTO is “contemplating revised guidance to help categorize the exceptions [to patent eligibility]—and indeed to name them—and instruct examiners on how to apply them.” Moreover, Director Iancu had created a new post that coordinates between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO and the examining corps, and he installed former PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke to that post in August 2018. True to his word, on January 7, 2019, Director Iancu issued “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” which explains how U.S. Patent Examiners should analyze patent-eligibility questions under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Revised Guidance). In less than two weeks since the Revised Guidance, the PTAB issued two decisions reversing examiners’ 35 USC § 101 rejections based on the Revised Guidance—ex parte Rockwell, Appeal No. 2018-004973, Jan. 16, 2019; and ex parte Fanaru, Appeal No. 2017-002898, Jan. 22, 2019.
The post First PTAB Reversals Under New Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 29: CAFC Affirms Prosecution Laches Ruling Against Hyatt; Trump Admin Cancels USPTO CBA; Second Circuit Affirms Lack of Standing in Ripple Trademark Case
- CAFC Dodges Key Issues in Reversing District Court Finding for Google on Prosecution Laches
- CAFC Corrects PTAB’s Inventorship Analysis in First Appeal of AIA Derivation Proceeding
- Brunetti’s Back: Split CAFC Rejects Most of Scandalous Trademark Applicant’s Arguments But Remands for Second Chance at TTAB
- CAFC is Unconvinced by Claim Construction Challenges to ITC’s Robotics Patent Infringement Finding