Skip to main content

Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About
Trending Topics
    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor, Employment, and Benefits
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations
    Industries

    View All

    • Aviation
    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Nonprofit Organizations
    • Real Estate
    • Sports & Stadiums
    • Technology
    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

      We help clients create positive return on investments in people, products, and the planet.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    • Women in Dealmaking

      We provide strategic counsel on complex corporate transactions and unite dynamic women in the dealmaking arena.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. More certainty on limits to early § 101 challenges — How will this impact patent owners and applicants?

      Alerts

    Alert / Intellectual Property

    More certainty on limits to early § 101 challenges — How will this impact patent owners and applicants?

    Jan 27, 2020

    LinkedInX (Twitter)EmailCopy URL

    By Ravinderjit Braich, Ph.D.

    The Supreme Court recently denied several petitions for certiorari on patent decisions by the Federal Circuit, including in a number of patent eligible subject matter cases. The denial in the HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, No. 18-415 (Jan. 13, 2020) case is positive news for both patent owners and applicants in technologies prone to subject matter eligibility issues. With the Berkheimer v. HP Inc. decision[i] going unreviewed by the Supreme Court, there is now at least some degree of clarity and hope during both patent enforcement and prosecution in the wake of the continued uncertainty created by Mayo/Alice framework.[ii]

    HP petitioned for certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision in Berkheimer,[iii] which was before Circuit Judges Moore, Taratano, and Stoll. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit by the patentee, Steven E. Berkheimer, following the district court’s summary judgment that certain claims of his patent were deemed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit decided that “[w]hile patent eligibility is ultimately a question of law, the district court erred in concluding there are not underlying factual questions to the § 101 inquiry.”[iv] The court further clarified that whether a claim element (or a combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination, and the mere fact something is disclosed in the prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional.[v]

    Amicus briefs supporting HP’s Supreme Court petition argued there has been a significant decrease in successful § 101 challenges at the pleadings and summary judgement stages ever since the Federal Circuit’s Berkheimer decision.[vi] Commentators have also noted a significant decline in § 101 invalidation rates at the pleadings and summary judgement stages post-Berkheimer.[vii] The takeaway is that Berkheimer has made it more difficult for an alleged infringer to invalidate asserted patent claims at the pleadings stage, or later on by moving for summary judgment, that previously would have been prone to § 101 issues.

    Berkheimer also appears to be helping applicants during patent prosecution. A few months after the Federal Circuit’s decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a memorandum revising its examination procedures to adopt Berkheimer[viii]  More specifically, the USPTO refined how examiners should apply the “inventive concept” step of the Alice analysis and tightened the evidentiary requirements on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity when analyzing eligibility under the Alice/Mayo framework.[ix]

    Subsequent guidance[x]  in early 2019 by the USPTO further increased the difficulty for examiners to make § 101 rejections by generally requiring that any claims deemed to be directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea[xi] must be classified as (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activities, or (iii) mental processes. The guidance importantly articulated that a claim is not “directed to” an identified judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea) if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the identified judicial exception. Based on the authors’ experiences, subject matter eligibility rejections have seen a noticeable decline in the last year. While Berkheimer provides at least some clarity on the § 101 issue, further clarification is still needed.[xii], [xiii]  It remains to be seen if there will be any shifts or clarity in the near future through subsequent decisions by the federal judiciary or through legislative action.

    However, Berkheimer and USPTO’s examination guidance have provided some positive developments for patent applicants and owners. For example, for technologies prone to § 101 issues under the Alice/Mayo framework, the USPTO’s guidance has lifted barriers to gaining allowance of otherwise patentable inventions, thus providing relief to applicants that may have been previously discouraged after the Alice decision. In addition, an owner of a patent that may still be prone to § 101 issues at least now has a better chance to carry forward an enforcement action well beyond the pleadings and summary judgement stages.


    1. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-415 (Jan. 13, 2020).
      [Back to reference]
    2. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and the subsequent subject matter eligibility determination framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
      [Back to reference]
    3. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
      [Back to reference]
    4. Id. at 1369.
      [Back to reference]
    5. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    6. See e.g., Brief of Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., Red Hat, Inc., and CableLabs as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition, HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, No. 18-415; Brief for Engine Advocacy as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, No. 18-415; Brief of Askeladden LLC as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitions, HP Inc. v. Berkheimer, No 18-415.
      [Back to reference]
    7. RPX, Alice’s Post-Berkheimer Decline Continues, with Summary Judgment Hit the Hardest, Oct. 23, 2019, available at https://www.rpxcorp.com/data-byte/alices-post-berkheimer-decline-continues-with-summary-judgment-hit-the-hardest/.
      [Back to reference]
    8. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (April 19, 2018).
      [Back to reference]
    9. Id. at 3-4.
      [Back to reference]
    10. “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,” 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019).
      [Back to reference]
    11. The other judicial exceptions are laws of nature and natural phenomena. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    12. The need for further clarification is highlighted by the heavily split Federal Circuit’s denial of en banc review in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019). While all twelve Federal Circuit judges agreed that Athena’s claimed method should be patent-eligible, the full court voted 7–5 not to hear the case en banc. The per curiam Order was accompanied by four concurring opinions and four dissenting opinions in the denial of Athena’s petition. All concurring and dissenting opinions noted the need for clarity from the Supreme Court. While Athena petitioned for certiorari, the Supreme Court also denied Athena’s petition the same day the Court denied Berkheimer.
      [Back to reference]
    13. Paul R. Michel and Matthew J. Dowd, “America’s Innovators Need Clear Patent Laws,” Wall Street Journal (January 23, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-innovators-need-clear-patent-laws-11579824646.
      [Back to reference]

    Practices

    Intellectual Property

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      Public opinion on patent eligibility law—far from a consensus

      Oct 26, 2021
    • Alert

      Understanding global grace periods to avoid missing patent opportunities

      Sep 29, 2021
    • Alert

      Protect your heart: Purely diagnostic heart monitoring device found to be patent eligible subject matter

      May 8, 2020
    The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL
    © 2025 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved