2022 was a year of change at the USPTO, while familiar trends once again dominated in the legislature and the judiciary. Below are a few of the most important patent developments of the year.

The Mayo/Myriad standard arguably introduced a great deal of uncertainty into the feasibility of obtaining patent protection for life sciences innovations and has been accused of curtailing the competitiveness of U.S.-based life sciences companies in the global marketplace.

2020 is officially here! In order to best prepare for the new year in patent policy, let's take a look at some top stories from 2019 with a lasting impact.

Receiving a rejection for a patent application is no one’s idea of a good time. After spending hours on hours shaping a patent application that is focused, novel, and specific, you are told to reconsider your hard work and have another go at it.

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: 

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.

Since June of 2014, Alice has become one of the most feared names in patent prosecution. Rejections citing Alice have multiplied exponentially since then, and they now account for more than 60% of §101 rejections and more than 8% of all rejections, as of our latest analysis. 

But Alice rejections aren’t necessarily fatal to an application – and we found the firms to prove it. Which firms are the best at overcoming Alice rejections and getting to an NOA? Read on to find out.

Class 705 is home to patents for processing business and financial data from big corporations like IBM, MasterCard, and WalMart. It’s also, as it turns out, home to a lot of Alice rejections.