On August 4, 2025, the USPTO issued a memo to patent examiners with the subject “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.” [1]
Much has been made of these reminders and what they might signal in terms of a possible shift in how the Office treats rejections under § 101
PatentNext Summary: The USPTO issued “Reminders” for examiners in Tech Centers 2100/2600/3600 addressing §101 eligibility for software and Artificial Intelligence(AI) / Machine Learning (ML)-related inventions; while not changing the MPEP, the guidance is meant to sharpen examination practice. It clarifies Step 2A, Prong One by limiting “mental process” to what can be practically performed in
PatentNext Summary: In a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s §101 dismissal of patent claims relating to an automated system for dumbbell weight selection and adjustment, finding that the claims were not abstract under Alice step one and therefore are patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit held that
PatentNext Summary: In Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated patent claims relating to AI-driven cosmetic recommendations, finding them directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court held that while the specification referenced artificial intelligence, the claims themselves failed
PatentNext Summary: In two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that merely applying artificial intelligence or digital techniques to a specific “field of use” does not satisfy patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., claims directed to AI-assisted television scheduling were deemed abstract for lacking inventive implementation. Similarly, in
PatentNext Summary: The Federal Circuit’s decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. found that applying generic machine learning techniques to a new environment, without a specific technological improvement, is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court emphasized that claims must articulate concrete technological advancements rather than merely applying established methods to different domains.
Agentic AI is transforming artificial intelligence by enabling systems to act independently, making decisions and solving problems autonomously across various industries. Its potential rapid development poses unique challenges for intellectual property protection, requiring innovative strategies to ensure these advancements are effectively safeguarded within the evolving IP landscape.
Introduction
Last year, we explored how Multimodal AI
PatentNext Summary: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) patent application filings continue to rise at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with a significant concentration in Tech Center 2100, which focuses on computer architecture and software, particularly AI and simulation technologies. GenAI inventions commonly face Section 103 (obviousness) and Section 101 (subject matter eligibility) rejections, with
PatentNext Takeaway: WIPO published a Patent Landscape Report on GenAI. The Patent Landscape Report discusses trends in GenAI, including trends in: GenAI scientific publications, GenAI patents, GenAI models, types of data used in GenAI, and GenAI application areas.Continue Reading WIPO Issues a Patent Landscape Report on Generative AI
Demonstrating that a claimed invention provides an “improvement” to an underlying computing device is one of the best ways to achieve patent eligibility pursuant to Section 101 of U.S. Patent Law. However, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an improvement to a “User Experience” (UX) alone is insufficient. The Federal Circuit recently issued yet another case, further cementing its position that improving a UX, without more, fails to demonstrate a technical improvement for satisfying Section 101 per the Alice two-part test.