A blog cannot live on patent eligibility alone. Below are the intellectual property developments we're tracking closely and why they matter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's Recentive decision reinforced a familiar message for artificial intelligence (AI) and software claims in litigation: Applying generic techniques to a new data environment, with results‑oriented claim language, is ineligible under Section 101 absent technological improvement to the model or computer itself. At the same time, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Desjardins framework and subsequent guidance nudge examiners to treat Section 101 as a gatekeeper and address breadth, inventiveness and clarity under Sections 102, 103 and 112, recognizing practical applications at Step 2A where appropriate.
We are watching whether this divergence hardens in 2026: steadier allowance paths at the USPTO for well‑documented implementations but continued Federal Circuit skepticism for "ends‑not‑means" claims in court.
On the horizon, Congress has again aired PERA and a new wave of commentary, and petitioners continue to seek U.S. Supreme Court intervention – developments that remain important signals even if near‑term change is unlikely.
Under new USPTO leadership, discretionary denials were reinforced, making Inter Partes Review less predictable and pushing more disputes back into district courts while ex parte reexams tick up.
We're tracking three datapoints: 1) what rationales drive denials, 2) whether petitioners continue pivoting to reexam as the validity tool of choice, and 3) whether – or how quickly – district courts advance merits as stays become harder to secure.