United Technologies, an American multinational conglomerate, recently agreed to combine its aerospace business with military contractor Raytheon, creating a new manufacturing giant in the aerospace and defense sectors. Under the new name of Raytheon Technologies, the merged company would have about $74 billion in expected sales for 2019. 

When looking for outside counsel, companies are likely hearing similar pitches from all law firms. Business intelligence can be a powerful differentiator, a tool that helps law firms identify areas of strength and discover new pathways to success. It can lead to more focused marketing efforts and a general uptick in client buy-in.

If the first six months of 2019 are any indication, this year will be a year of reform. 

In June, we marked the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Far from being settled law, questions of subject matter eligibility have dominated the conversation about patents in the courts, Congress, and the USPTO during the first half of the year. The continued controversy surrounding the Alice case half a decade after it was decided vividly demonstrates its unpopularity and underscores the broad consensus that the time for reform is now.

Elsewhere, the Supreme Court also issued two decisions focusing on provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), while theft of IP assets by Chinese firms continues to plague U.S. businesses..

In 2013, the USPTO enacted the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 program as an alternative response to a final rejection. The goal of the program was to increase communication between examiners and applicants and take those applications that are close to allowance across the finish line, without requiring the time and cost inevitably associated with an RCE.

Over the last two weeks, patent practitioners, former judges, consultants, and law professors have testified in front of the Senate on the subject of patent eligibility law. Here's a recap of the hearings: 

Thanks to Juristat examiner analytics, patent practitioners can now leverage data to shape prosecution strategy based on the decision history of an assigned examiner.

Here are  three essential (and often overlooked) examiner analytics that can lead to a more strategic prosecution.

Sprint and T-Mobile recently announced that they had reached a deal to merge, promising to “be a force for positive change in the U.S. wireless, video, and broadband industries.” Combining the country’s third and fourth largest mobile service providers would be one of the most significant consolidations in the American wireless market in years.

We’ve all been there. Prosecution is taking longer than expected. You’re facing one rejection after another. And your client is starting to question whether this patent is worth pursuing.

This precarious position is where Jonathan Miller of Nicholson De Vos Webster & Elliott LLP found himself during a recent prosecution.

Thanks to Juristat patent analytics, practitioners can now leverage data to make strategic decisions throughout the patent prosecution process.

Watch our latest video to learn how firms and in-house teams can shape strategy with big data during all parts of the prosecution process.

Due to inconsistent interpretation, preparing for and responding to Alice rejections has become one of the most stressful aspects of patent prosecution. Rejections citing Alice have multiplied exponentially since the initial decision on June 19, 2014, and they now account for more than 60% of §101 rejections and more than 8% of all rejections, as of our latest analysis.