Congratulations, you've invented a solar-powered flashlight. It's novel, non-obvious, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has one simple, crushing question: Is it actually useful? Welcome to the surprisingly tricky world of the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In this episode, we dissect the USPTO's favorite three-word mantra for utility: "specific, substantial, and credible." We explain why your invention needs a concrete, real-world benefit, and why purely ornamental creations have to find another home (it’s called a design patent). We’ll clarify why your invention just has to work—it doesn’t need to be commercially successful or better than the competition to pass the baseline test.

We then venture into the boss-level challenges of the utility world, like research tools and therapeutic methods, where legal battles like Brenner v. Manson and In re Fisher set the unforgiving rules. Finally, we untangle the critical interplay between proving your invention is useful and accidentally starting the one-year clock on your public disclosure bars.

So, if you want to make sure your brilliant creation doesn't get tossed in the "interesting but useless" pile by an examiner, tune in. We promise this episode will have a specific, substantial, and credible benefit to your patent strategy.

This episode provides a critical analysis of the novelty and anticipation doctrines following their fundamental restructuring under the America Invents Act (AIA). We examine the paradigm shift from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-inventor-to-file" system, a change that has profoundly altered patent prosecution strategy in the United States.

The discussion centers on the modern definition of prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, assessed against an application's effective filing date. We explore the expanded, global scope of prior art, which now encompasses a wide range of public disclosures, including various online materials. A key focus is the exacting standard for anticipation, requiring that a single prior art reference meet both the "all elements rule" and the enablement requirement to invalidate a claim.

Furthermore, we analyze the strategic implications of the AIA's one-year grace period, detailing its limited protections for inventor-originated disclosures. The episode concludes by underscoring the paramount importance of early and strategic patent filing and the necessity of conducting comprehensive, global prior art searches in the current legal environment.

Ever get that sinking feeling after excitedly telling everyone about your brilliant idea at a conference, only to remember you haven't filed the patent application yet? Welcome to the minefield of statutory bars under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the part of patent law designed to punish those who talk first and file later.

In this episode, we unpack the deadliest pre-filing sins in the "first-inventor-to-file" world. We’ll distinguish between the two main ways your work can come back to haunt you: § 102(a)(1) prior art (your own public disclosures) and § 102(a)(2) prior art (that other person who quietly filed something similar before you).

We’ll also explore that tricky one-year grace period—your supposed ‘get out of jail free’ card that comes with a ton of fine print. We break down the infamous on-sale bar, including the legal headaches from Pfaff and Helsinn, the public use bar, and its elusive cousin, the experimental use exception. Through a series of all-too-relatable scenarios, we offer strategic advice to keep your brilliant ideas out of the public domain and squarely in your portfolio.

Tune in to learn how not to torpedo your own patent application before it even leaves the harbor.

This episode delves into the prevailing legal test for patent eligibility in the United States under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We begin by outlining the four statutory categories of invention—processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter—before focusing on the judicially created exceptions for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas that define the modern challenges of eligibility.

The core of the discussion is a detailed examination of the Alice/Mayo two-step framework, the critical analytical test employed by the USPTO and federal courts. We analyze the nuanced search for an "inventive concept" or "markedly different characteristics" necessary to transform a claim directed to a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application.

Furthermore, the episode explores the significant policy considerations that underpin this area of jurisprudence, addressing the fundamental balance between incentivizing innovation and preventing the improper monopolization of fundamental knowledge. The discussion concludes with an overview of the special statutory limitations on remedies for patents on medical and surgical procedures, illustrating how Congress has intervened in this complex domain.

This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the statutory framework governing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We examine the four enumerated categories of invention—process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter—and clarify the eligibility of improvements to existing technologies.

A central focus is the critical analysis of judicially created exceptions, including laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. We discuss the requisite integration of these concepts into a practical application, underscored by an inventive concept, to overcome ineligibility. The discussion further distinguishes subject matter eligibility from the separate patentability requirements of novelty (§ 102) and non-obviousness (§ 103), providing clarity on the initial hurdles in patent prosecution. Key principles are illustrated through various scenarios emphasizing the importance of tangibility, functionality, and precise claim drafting.