PatentNext Takeaway: The Federal Circuit’s decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 2024-2270 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2026), provides another important warning for patent applicants seeking protection for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning technologies. Applying a generic AI or “deep learning” system to a specialized medical or dental problem—even where the AI
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Board decision canceling all but five challenged claims, which survived not on their merits, but because the petitioner failed to adequately argue they were unpatentable. Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Appeal 2025-1053 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2026) (nonprecedential). Each surviving claim depends upon a base claim
PatentNext Takeaway: Generative artificial intelligence patenting has entered a new phase. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), more GenAI patent families were published during 2024 and 2025 than during the entire preceding decade. GenAI patenting is also expanding beyond traditional technology companies into finance, telecommunications, infrastructure, and other industries. For businesses developing or
PatentNext Takeaway: In Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., the Federal Circuit provided a useful reminder for drafting AI-related patent claims: dependent claims can help preserve broader independent-claim scope where the dependent claims separately recite narrower AI or agent-based implementations.
Although Applications in Internet Time was not a generative AI case, its reasoning
PatentNext Takeaway: On April 30, 2026, the USPTO issued a memorandum titled “Best Practices for Submission of Rule 132 Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs),” updating the Office’s December 4, 2025 guidance to applicants and practitioners. The new memorandum reinforces the Office’s SMED framework and characterizes it as a living body of guidance informed by practitioner
PatentNext Takeway: Ex parte Desjardins—and especially the USPTO’s decision to make it precedential—appears to be shifting examination away from § 101 and toward § 112 written-description scrutiny, particularly for AI-related inventions. For AI-related inventions, a central takeaway is that practitioners should expect more examiner demands for concrete disclosure of how an AI model is trained,
PatentNext Summary: The USPTO has rescinded its February 2024 inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions and replaced it with revised guidance issued on November 28, 2025, so prior materials relying on the earlier guidance should be treated as outdated. The revised guidance emphasizes traditional conception-based inventorship, makes clear that AI may assist but cannot be an
Following the USPTO’s high-profile actions in Desjardins, the next question was how that guidance would play out in ordinary PTAB appeals. Ex parte Carmody provides an early answer.
The decision itself is short. The analysis is sparse. And that is precisely why it matters.
On December 4, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued two memoranda addressing the use of Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (“SMEDs”) during patent prosecution, both from Director John Squires. The first, the SMED Examiner Memo, targets the Patent Examining Corps, clarifying how examiners should treat applicant-submitted evidence under 37 CFR 1.132
In our earlier posts, we discussed the significance of Ex Parte Desjardins: first when the Appeals Review Panel vacated the § 101 rejection, and again when Director Squires designated the decision as precedential.
Today, the USPTO has taken the next step: it has formally issued a memo to the examining corps announcing updates