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, in particular
When we first covered Ex parte Desjardins, we noted that the decision, which was issued just days after Director John Squires took office, could mark the beginning of a new era for AI and software patent eligibility at the USPTO. That prediction now appears well-founded. On November 4, 2025, Director Squires designated the Desjardins
On October 8, 2025, the Office announced the “Automated Search Pilot Program,” a new initiative that will use an internal AI tool to conduct a prior art search before an application undergoes substantive examination. The pilot program slated to begin on October 20, 2025 offers applicants a unique, early look at an AI-generated
PatentNext Summary: The Desjardins decision, co-authored by new USPTO Director John Squires, signals a potential shift toward greater patent eligibility for AI and software innovations. By vacating a § 101 rejection and warning that “categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America’s leadership in this critical emerging technology,” the Appeals
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: Recent rulings from the Northern District of California in Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta provide the first substantive guidance on how the fair use doctrine applies to AI training, particularly for large language models (LLMs). Both courts found that using lawfully obtained copyrighted books for LLM training can qualify as “highly
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 to
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.
In a recent PTABWatch article titled “PTAB Provides Some Clarity on Artificial intelligence (AI) Obviousness in IPR decision,” the PTAB’s approach to evaluating obviousness in AI-related patents is examined. The article discusses the case Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLC, where the PTAB invalidated all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Number 11,055,583, which pertained to