Clause 8 favorites - former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and HTIA’s David Jones - return for the first ever Clause 8 debate!

They debate Section 101, find common ground, and discuss possible paths forward for improving the state of patent eligibility in America.

Selected Topics

* Impact of Federal Circuit’s State Street decision: "golden age of business method patents”

* Supreme Court’s Section 101 decisions: Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice

* Iancu’s role & thoughts about Ariosa v. Sequenom

* Why Jones was concerned after Alice and what changed his mind

* Federal Circuit’s handling of Section 101 after Alice

* Agreement regarding the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance

* 77% Rate of Section 101 Rejections in USPTO's AI Tech Group

* Whether the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) is a step toward a successful compromise in Congress

* Possible adoption of EPO’s approach to patent eligibility

Notable, Quotable

"Patents are not just any other area of law. Patents are legal instruments, of course, but they're also commercial instruments." - Iancu

"What I think we disagree on is you don't think that the sky is falling when it comes to 101 . . . as is in the United States now, I do think the sky is falling." -Iancu

"Let's make the law clearer. Clearer law is always better." -Jones

*Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended as a general overview. The podcast does not constitute legal advice nor solicitation to provide legal services. It is not meant to convey a legal position, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely my own and those of any guests and do not express the views or opinions of any organization with which I or the guests are affiliated.  In some jurisdictions, the contents of this podcasts may be considered Attorney Advertising.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com