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: 

On Sunday, February 24, film fans, pop culture fanatics, and all of Hollywood’s brightest stars will tune in to the live broadcast of the 91st Oscars ceremony. With eight movies nominated for best picture, from the bombastic Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody to the devastatingly poetic Roma, the ceremony is guaranteed to be star-studded, ornate, and maybe even a little unpredictable.

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.

As more and more of our daily life becomes automated, analyzed, and interconnected, people look forward to the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) every year to learn about emerging tech and its potential application to everyday life.

The 2018-2019 government shutdown will stand – at least for now – as the longest closure or partial closure of the U.S. federal government in modern history. While the USPTO is not immune from the dangers of a shutdown, it has a unique structure that helps it weather the storm. So well, in fact, that the USPTO has never closed due to a lack of federal appropriations.

The four years since Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) have seen thousands of patents invalidated based on its holdings. In an update to our Alice: Three Years On review of the patent landscape, we look to see where Alice has had the greatest impact within the USPTO.

 

An Overview of Patent Prosecution Trends at the USPTO Since the Year 2000

 

Since the year 2000, there have been major shifts in law, policy, and the technological landscape that have had profound impacts on patent prosecution practice at the USPTO. Although we often focus our analytics on small corners of the USPTO, such as individual industries, art unit groups, and practice entities, we rarely take a step back to evaluate the general trends at work across the entire USPTO. Now, we'll pull back the curtain to reveal a few USPTO-wide prosecution trends.  

This page is intended to be a general resource for patent prosecutors to use to get a bird's-eye view of the state of patent prosecution trends across the USPO. 

Check back often, as we will periodically update this information and add new charts and graphs to bring you even more groundbreaking insights.

To speed up patent prosecution and minimize unnecessary Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), the USPTO enacted the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 program as an alternative response to a final rejection. The plan 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.