HOME ABOUT ARCHIVE
« EXPLORING THE LEGAL CONTOURS OF PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY | MAIN
12/23/2016
ALICE BRINGS A MIX OF GIFTS FOR 2016 HOLIDAYS
by Robert R. Sachs
Like the odd aunt whose holiday gifts can range from the wonderful to the recyclable, in 2016 Alice brought both good and bad tidings. Let’s start with the nice ones.
[Fig. 1 year over year]
The numbers here are through December 22, 2016. The big picture is that the overall rate of district court ineligibility decisions* has declined each year since Alice, while the total number of decisions has increased each year. This may be an indication of several factors. First, plaintiffs are being more careful in selecting which patents to assert. Thus, clear losers do not get picked for litigation. On the other hand, defendants continue to push the envelope on what they can challenge under Section 101, and in doing so, have overreached. As a result, the overall invalidity rate has fallen.
Drilling down to the monthly numbers, the news is a little more mixed:
[Fig 2]
As I previously reported, the monthly data showed a drop in the number of invalidity decisions as well as an overall downward trend in the invalidity rate for district court decisions. In December thus far there’s been an uptick in such invalidity decisions (seven thus far) and a few more may issue in the before the year is out. The dotted line above shows the invalidity over three month periods, to smooth out the monthly fluctuations; overall the trend has been downward.
Nonetheless, in October, I cautioned that “I would prefer to see these numbers hold for several months,” because the Federal Circuit “continues to affirm more invalidity decisions than it reverses.” This fact still holds true: there have been nine decisions by the Federal Circuit since October, and they have affirmed ineligible subject matter in seven of them (77%).
Here are the overall Alicestorm numbers:
[3 summary]
PTAB continues its remarkable streak of invaliding patents in CBMs. While the numbers above show less than 100% kill rate, that only because there have been three cases in which the Board split, invalidating some claims, but not others. To date, there is not a single CBM final decision in which the Board reversed the institution decision on § 101 and found all of claims patent eligible. While the number of final decisions is up, on the bright side, the number of institution decisions on § 101 is down from last year:
[Ptab]
The drop in institutions more has more to do with the behavior of litigants filing less CBM’s than PTAB itself.
Returning to the courts, the rates on motions on the pleadings in the district courts appear to be levelling off. The three month average success rate for motions on the pleadings (JOP and MTD) has been steadily declining over the past five months:
[3m rate]
The most active judges in Section 101 continue to be those in Delaware and E.D. Texas:
[Judges]
Here’s the current Federal Circuit § 101 Scorecard
[Scorecard]
Finally, software patents continue to bear the brunt of § 101 challenges:
[Classes]
The good news however, is that the percent of software patents invalidated has dropped a bit from 61% in 2015 to 54% in 2016.
[Types by year]
I’ll review the impact of Alice in the USPTO in an upcoming blog.
Finally, I'll send you off with the following wish:
May your toasts this season always be novel,
Your gifts non-obvious,
And most importantly of all,
your holidays enjoyment-eligible.
------
* An ineligibility decision is one in which the court finds at least one claim invalid under Section 101.
| PERMALINK
Reblog (0)
COMMENTS
Comment below or sign in with Typepad Facebook Twitter Google+ and more... [powered by Typepad]
SEARCH
Fenwick & West Intellectual Property Group offers integrated advice on all aspects of the protection and exploitation of intellectual property, including patent, trademark, copyright and licensing matters. Subscribe to our Intellectual Property and Patent mailing lists
Subscribe to Bilski Blog
Enter your Email:
AUTHORS
Robert R. Sachs
Stuart P. Meyer
Daniel R. Brownstone
Jennifer R. Bush
CATEGORIES
#AliceStorm Abstract Ideas Biotechnology Business Methods Laws of Nature PTAB Software
RECENT POSTS
Alice Brings a Mix of Gifts For 2016 Holidays Exploring the Legal Contours of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility A Long Road Ahead: A Solo Entrepreneur's Perspective on the USPTO’s Roundtable I - Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines USPTO's Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Roundtable on Dec. 5, 2016 Busting the Myth of the Unlimited RCEs AliceStorm Update for Fall 2016 Judge Mayer’s Concurrence in IV Shows the Problem with Judicially Created Exceptions MAZ Encryption Technologies: The Proper Way to Decide a Rule 12(c) Motion for Ineligible Subject Matter More Lessons From McRo Bad Science Makes Bad Patent Law—No Science Makes It Worse (Part II)
ARCHIVES
December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015
FENWICK BLOGS
Bilski Blog IT Law Today Life Sciences Legal Insights Series Seed
RELATED BLOGS
Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Patently-O Techdirt
Follow via RSS
SEARCH
FOLLOW US
ABOUT
Fenwick & West Intellectual Property Group © 2008-2016 Fenwick & West LLP
TERMS
Terms of Use Privacy Copyright
