Source: https://www.straffordpub.com/products/tlepkthkra?utm_campaign=tlepkthkra&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=&amp;utm_source=faculty&amp;pid=&amp;trk=ZDFCA&amp;mid=&amp;rd=sp04
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:01:45+00:00

Document:
This CLE webinar will examine recent decisions applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank on patent eligibility. The panel will discuss the guidance from these opinions and offer best practices for addressing patent eligibility issues.
The Federal Circuit and other federal courts, as well as the PTAB, are issuing rulings regarding patent eligibility based on and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). These opinions provide guidance on the application of Alice Corp., in which the Court concluded the claims were not patent eligible because they were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit held that narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add “significantly more” to render the claims patent eligible under §101 [BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons Inc. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)].
Also, in June 2018, the USPTO issued a memorandum providing patent eligibility examination guidance based on the court's recent decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2018). The memo emphasizes that method of treatment claims can be found to satisfy §101 at the first step of an Alice/Mayo analysis, without a showing of nonroutine or unconventional steps.
Patent counsel should take note of these and other instructive opinions that provide insight into how §101 is being applied to determine patent eligibility.
Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discusses the cases handed down by the Federal Circuit, PTAB and various district courts since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. and examines the guidance these cases provide for patent counsel regarding patent eligibility. The panel will offer best practices going forward for demonstrating patent eligibility.
Best practices for patent eligibility post-Alice Corp.
How are the courts applying the framework for patent eligibility created in Alice Corp.?
How can patent litigation defendants take advantage of the guidance for §101 challenges?
What are best practices for patent counsel to demonstrate patent eligibility?
How can patent counsel address subject eligibility rejections made by patent examiners?

References: v. 
 v. 
 §101
 v. 
 v. 
 §101
 §101
 §101