Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

publish a request for information on the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States since the Supreme Courts decisions in Mayo and Alice, evaluate the responses, and provide a detailed summary of its findings by March 5, 2022. The Senators indicated a particular interest in learning how the current jurisprudence has adversely impacted investment and innovation in critical technologies like quantum computing, artificial intelligence,6 precision medicine, diagnostic methods, and pharmaceutical treatments.
Request for Information: To aid in the study that Senators Tillis, Hirono, Cotton, and Coons requested, the USPTO invites stakeholders to submit written comments on the questions below. In the questions, the phrase the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States should be understood as referring to the body of patent subject matter eligibility decisions issued by the U.S. Federal Judiciary.
When responding to the questions, please identify yourself and your interest in the U.S. patent system. If applicable, please indicate whether you fall within one or more of the following categories: 1 Inventors, patent owners, or investors e.g., venture capital, investment bank, fund, etc.; 2
licensees or users of patented technology; 3 entities that represent inventors or patent owners e.g., law firms; 4 recipients of demand letters concerning alleged patent infringement or accused infringers in a patent lawsuit; 5 entities that represent accused infringers; 6 government agencies or officials; 7 academic or research institutions; 8 intellectual property organizations or associations;
and 9 nonprofit organizations or advocacy groups. Additionally, if you are a patent owner or inventor, please include the number of U.S. and foreign patent applications you have filed; the number of U.S. and foreign patents you hold; the number of patents you have licensed or sold; and the number of patent cases you have been involved in since the Supreme Courts decision in Bilski in 2010.
Commenters need not respond to every question and may provide 6 On October 6, 2020, the USPTO released a report titled Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy. The report takes a comprehensive look at a wide variety of stakeholder views on the impact of artificial intelligence across the intellectual property landscape. See generally Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy, available at www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/USPTO_AI-Report_2020-10-07.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:01 Jul 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

relevant information even if not responsive to a particular question.
Topics for Public Comment Section IObservations and Experiences 1. Please explain how the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence affects the conduct of business in your technology areas. Please identify the technology areas in your response.
2. Please explain what impacts, if any, you have experienced as a result of the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States.
Please include impacts on as many of the following areas as you can, identifying concrete examples and supporting facts when possible:
a. Patent prosecution strategy and portfolio management;
b. patent enforcement and litigation;
c. patent counseling and opinions;
d. research and development;
e. employment;
f. procurement;
g. marketing;
h. ability to obtain financing from investors or financial institutions;
i. investment strategy;
j. licensing of patents and patent applications;
k. product development;
l. sales, including downstream and upstream sales;
m. innovation; and n. competition.
3. Please explain how the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States impacts particular technological fields, including investment and innovation in any of the following technological areas:
a. Quantum computing;
b. artificial intelligence;
c. precision medicine;
d. diagnostic methods;
e. pharmaceutical treatments; and f. other computer-related inventions e.g., software, business methods, computer security, databases and data structures, computer networking, and graphical user interfaces.
4. Please explain how your experiences with the application of subject matter eligibility requirements in other jurisdictions, including China, Japan, Korea, and Europe, differ from your experiences in the United States.
5. Please identify instances where you have been denied patent protection for an invention in the United States solely on the basis of patent subject matter ineligibility, but obtained protection for the same invention in a foreign jurisdiction, or vice versa. Please provide specific examples, such as the technologyies and jurisdictions
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36259

involved, and the reason the invention was held ineligible in the United States or other jurisdiction.
6. Please explain whether the state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States has caused you to modify or shift investment, research and development activities, or jobs from the United States to other jurisdictions, or to the United States from other jurisdictions. If so, please identify the relevant modifications and their associated impacts.
7. Please explain whether the state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States has caused you to change business strategies for protecting your intellectual property e.g., shifting from patents to trade secrets, or vice versa.
If so, please identify the changes and their associated impacts.
8. Please explain whether you have changed your behavior with regard to filing, purchasing, licensing, selling, or maintaining patent applications and patents in the United States as a result of the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States. If so, please describe how you changed your behavior.
9. Please explain how, in your experience, the status of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States has affected any litigation for patent infringement in the United States in which you been involved as a party, as legal counsel, or as another participant e.g., an expert witness. For example, please explain whether this jurisprudence has affected the cost or duration of such litigation, the ability to defend against claims of patent infringement, the certainty/uncertainty of litigation outcomes, or the likelihood of settlement.
Section IIImpact of Subject Matter Eligibility on the General Marketplace 10. Please identify how the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States impacts the global strength of U.S. intellectual property.
11. Please identify how the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States impacts the U.S.
economy as a whole.
12. Please identify how the current state of subject matter eligibility jurisprudence in the United States impacts the global strength of U.S.
intellectual property and the U.S.
economy in any of the following areas:
a. Quantum computing;
b. artificial intelligence;
c. precision medicine;
d. diagnostic methods;
e. pharmaceutical treatments; and f. other computer-related inventions e.g., software, business methods,
E:FRFM09JYN1.SGM

09JYN1