With its recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020), and a 6-6 stalemate by the court’s active judges on whether to take the case en banc, the Federal Circuit has now adopted—under the rubric of 35 U.S.C. §101—a formalized set of enablement-like requirements for patent claims. For a simple “threshold” eligibility test, section 101 has grown remarkably complex. Indeed, since the Supreme Court’s 2012 Mayo and 2014 Alice decisions re-cast patent eligibility into a “two-step framework,” the Section 101 test adjudges not just subject-matter eligibility and the three “limited” exceptions thereto, but also patentability or “inventive-concept” challenges predicated on comparisons to the prior art, see 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103. And now the enablement-type requirements imposed by AAM v. Neapco.
Recent Posts
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now
- What Fintiv v. PayPal Means for Software and AI Patent Practice
- Despite Tweaks, PREVAIL 2025 Would Still Transform the PTAB
- Patent Eligibility Reform Returns to the Hill: PERA 2025 Explained
- PayPal, Apple Succeed in Scrapping Fintiv’s Patent Claims at CAFC