The recent expansion of patent eligibility for AI inventions before the USPTO

Published
Score
1

Why it matters

Core event: On September 26, 2025, the USPTO's Appeals Review Panel (ARP), presided over by newly sworn-in Director John A. Squires, issued the precedential decision in Ex Parte Desjardins (Appeal 2024-000567), vacating a PTAB rejection of machine learning claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision emphasized that claims showing improvements to computer functioning or other technical fields integrate judicial exceptions into practical applications under the Alice/Mayo Step 2A, Prong Two framework, steering away from strict abstract idea scrutiny.[1][3][4]

Key players: USPTO Director John A. Squires (sworn in September 22, 2025) led the ARP, with Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge Kim authoring the opinion. Involved entities include the USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and Appeal Review Panel (ARP). No specific companies are named, but the shift aids AI/software applicants broadly; related cases reference Ex Parte Kuusela for machine learning models.[4][1]

Context and timeline: Post-Alice (2014) and Mayo (2012), § 101 rejections surged for AI/software due to abstract idea concerns, compounded by 2024 Biden-era AI inventorship guidance requiring significant human contribution. Shifts began with August 4, 2025 USPTO "Reminders" memo curbing overbroad rejections for AI/ML in Tech Centers 2100/2600/3600, followed by Ex Parte Desjardins, PTAB pattern decisions expanding eligibility, November 28, 2025 guidance rescinding prior AI rules (treating AI as tools under traditional standards), and December 5, 2025 advance notice of MPEP updates incorporating Desjardins examples in 2106.04(d).[2][5][7][1][4]

Newsworthiness: This USPTO-led recalibration within existing law—without Congressional action like the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act—signals a patentee-friendly pivot for AI, software, and emerging tech, reducing § 101 hurdles and enabling aggressive filing/prosecution strategies amid 2026 MPEP changes. It contrasts prior restrictive guidance, potentially shielding recent patents from challenges while courts' responses remain pending.[3][4][2][1]

Sources

mail

Get notified about new Intellectual Property developments

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

See more entries tagged Intellectual Property.