Send us a text

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we present a three-way conversation about patent eligibility between Gene Quinn, the founder of IPWatchdog.com, and patent attorneys and IPWatchdog Advisory Committee members John Rogitz and Clint Mehall. 

Under Director John Squires, the Patent Office is attempting to restore discipline and structure to the Section 101 inquiry, with the office earlier this month having updated the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) in light of a recent decision by Squires in Ex parte Desjardins, where it was decided that improvements to the training of a machine learning technology were patent eligible. Thus, the Patent Office is emphasizing real-world technological improvements, requiring examiners to engage with the specification, and rejecting overbroad “abstract idea” characterizations—particularly for AI and machine-learning inventions. 

At the same time the Patent Office is taking action, the Federal Circuit continues to inject uncertainty into the system. The CAFC refuses to define the term “abstract idea,” they continue to decide patent eligibility matters without claim construction, and panel-dependent outcomes are the norm. This is not doctrinal confusion—it is a judicial choice that enables early case dismissal while undermining the patent statute and harming innovators.

Bottom line that comes from this conversation is that the USPTO is moving in the right direction, but without meaningful judicial or legislative correction of Section 101, these reforms can only go so far. A patent system that cannot protect modern technology cannot sustain long-term innovation.

Visit us online at IPWatchdog.com.

You can also visit our channels at YouTube, LinkedIn, X, Instagram and Facebook.