Nathan Cassell

Undermining Innovation: The Consequences of Closing the Rocky Mountain Regional USPTO Office In the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress required the USPTO to establish at least three regional offices nationwide. The Trump administration’s decision to close the Denver office undermines this ...

Russell Slifer, former Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, argues that regional offices provide a vital link between the innovation community and the federal government, and that their closure threatens to undo years of progress.

Does the 2025 Version of PERA Indirectly Sanction Judicially Created, Non-Statutory ODP? Since its introduction in 2023, the pro-patent community has broadly supported what the draft Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) said. However, a potentially monumental, unrelated rider seems t...

Sherry Knowles writes: "Let’s delete Section 4(a) of the 2025 PERA bill and give PERA its day exclusively to consider patent eligibility." Agreed

USPTO Plan Discourages Examiners from Collaborating with Applicants, Risks Worsening Backlog & Boosting "Low Patent Quality Narrative Internal Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) announcements spur outcry from patent examiners and flood of interview denials; USPTO schedules public "USPTO Hour" in response.

An in-depth article from the Voice of IP discussing the USPTO's recently proposed changes to the Patent Examiner Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP).

Statement by Director Squires before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary Statement for the Record ofJohn A. Squires

John A. Squires, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, issued a statement this week in support of an expansive patent eligibility approach, noting that "applied scientific ideas — when claimed in a practical form — are precisely what our patent system was designed to encourage."

Earlier this month, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced the closure of the Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office.

Earlier this week, members of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property discussed the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), a proposed legislative solution which aims to rectify improper Supreme Court decisions that limited the scope of patent eligible subject matter.

Op-Ed: Congress should pass IP reform, starting with 3 patent bills | The Coast News Group Lawmakers from both parties are collaborating with the White House to modernize America's intellectual property system.

Kathleen O'Malley, former judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), urges passage of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) to establish "clear standards for what can and cannot be patented."

To "catalyze research and innovation", the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association for Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) join to express support for the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA).

Purported Plan to Charge Patent Owners a Percentage of Patent Value is Fraught with Peril The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Trump Administration is considering a major change to patent fees, which would charge patent holders somewhere between 1% to 5% of the overall value of th...

IPWatchdog valuates the Trump administration's plan for new patent fees

Subject Matter Eligibility in the 21st Century: Echoes of pre-§ 103 Obviousness* By Kevin E. Noonan -- The evolution of subject matter eligibility after the Supreme Court's decisions in Prometheus v. Mayo, Alice v. CLS Bank, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Geneti...

"The evolution of subject matter eligibility after the Supreme Court's decisions in Prometheus v. Mayo, Alice v. CLS Bank, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics has resulted in a regime of predictable unpredictability and certain uncertainty [...]." Let's fix this with PERA.

The Patent Eligibility Reform Act: Clarifying Patent Eligibility for the U.S. Patent System?

📢 On Aug. 13 at 12 PM ET, join The Federalist Society for a webinar on the #Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (#PERA).

The event will feature remarks from #C4IP's Jamie Simpson and Judge Kathleen O'Malley, alongside other industry experts.

Register: fedsoc.org/events/the-p...

YouTube video by IPWatchdog, Inc. Patent Eligibility

IPWatchdog panel discussion on patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with Andrei Iancu, Vince Rubino, and John Rogitz

ACS Urges Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property to Support the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act - American Chemical Society ACS Urges Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property to Support the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act

@acs.org‬ supports the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 (PERA, US Senate Bill S 1546) to bring clarity and predictability to the evaluation of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

"[I]t is time for Congress to fix the Supreme Court’s mistakes."

Great article in support of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA). Let's restore sanity to 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility.

Tillis, Coons Announce New Bipartisan Support for Legislation to Restore American Innovation

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) join the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) as cosponsors.

"Importantly, this legislation only affects patent eligibility, it does nothing to affect the many other requirements for patentability.”
- Senator Hirono

Home Masur & Ouellette's Patent Law: Cases, Problems, and Materials is a patent law casebook offered for free download and at-cost (royalty-free) printing under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerci...

Pleased to announce the 4th ed of Jonathan Masur’s and my free patent law casebook. So far it has been adopted at 70+ law schools, and students say they love its problem-centered approach and conceptual clarity. Plus it has saved them a lot of money! www.patentcasebook.org

USPTO switches Southeast Regional Office from Atlanta to Alexandria, sparking congressional criticism | ALXnow The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will establish its new Southeast Regional Outreach Office at its Alexandria headquarters, reversing a previous decision to locate the facility in Atlanta, accordin...

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will now establish its new Southeast Regional Outreach Office in Alexandria instead of Atlanta

Nice. A great summary of best practices (drafting tips and prosecution strategies) for helping to prevent or overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility rejections

High Court Skips Case Challenging Its Patent Eligibility Test The US Supreme Court turned away a case challenging how courts have applied its test to screen out abstract ideas from patent eligibility.

On June 6, 2025 the US Supreme Court declined to clarify the Alice/Mayo patent eligibility standards under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Audio Evolution Diagnostics v. US)

Section 101 Trap: Improvements to the Abstract Idea Itself — Mr. IP Law Facing §101 rejections at the USPTO and finding the Office agreeing that there's an improvement—but only to the abstract idea itself? Read the latest post.

Helpful advice from patent attorney John Russell on how to minimize the likelihood of drawing a 35 U.S.C. § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection by "anchoring the improvement to technology beyond the abstract idea".

We speak today on behalf of the legal profession and its members who seek to live by the oath each took upon admission to the bar. We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. These efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized. There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don’t speak now, when will we speak? The American Bar Association has chosen to stand and speak. Now is the time for all of us to speak with one voice. We invite you to stand with us.

The ABA rejects efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession. Read full message: www.americanbar.org/news/abanews...

Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program - SUSPENDED The Climate Change Mitigation Pilot program is suspended effective 5 p.m. ET on January 28, 2025. Any petitions to participate in this program that are filed after 5 p.m. ET on January 28, 2025, will ...

Thank you, some additional details at the link

Critical questions about the scope and consequences of DOGE's access to confidential/classified information.

Enjoying Jorge Goldstein's new book Patenting Life. Chapter 1 describes the intent of the original Venetian Patent Statute - to encourage the innovators who were fleeing from Constantinople to remain in Venice, instead of moving farther north.

Interesting story!

YouTube video by The Patent Guy Crisis at the USPTO: How Trump's Policies Are Undermining America's Innovation Engine!"

A review of what's happening at the Patent Office, and where things might go from here

Great find, some fascinating historical drawings here.