FIFTH POST:T he conclusion of this Series on the dual approach to the Alice/Mayo Test, and its impacts and implications on the US patent system and intellectual property owners.

FOURTH POST: I had intended to take a break from this Series, but recent events require attention, as the disastrous dual approach the Alice/Mayo Test continues to wreak havoc on US patent rights.

 Last week we had the privilege of hosting a memorable event

THIRD POST: The Divergent Competencies Problem – A discussion of how the current dual approach to the Alice/Mayo test has a structural flaw that is wreaking havoc on U.S. Patent Rights.

If you have ever come up with a product or design and thought, “Someone must have already invented this,” or “It’s probably too expensive to protect,”—you’re not alone.

Part 2 in a series on how the United States dual (or dueling?) approach to the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test for subject matter eligibility under Section 101 has a fundamental structural flaw that at least partially explains why this judicially-created doctrine in patent law has been so catastrophic.

This is a short explanation of how the United States dual (or dueling) approach to the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test for subject matter eligibility under Section 101 has a fundamental structural flaw that at least partially explains why this judicially-created doctrine in patent law has been so catastrophic.

A newly-proposed value-based patent fee could stifle innovation and drive inventors away from the U.S. system.

As U.S. manufacturing returns under new federal policies, the relevance and enforceability of American patents will undergo a resurgence. We explore how reshoring amplifies patent value and enforcement leverage, shifting the strategic landscape for innovators and IP owners.

The first in a series of periodic updates on the status of the Patent Eligibility Requirement of (allegedly) 35 U.S.C. Section 101, and in particular the exception for "abstract ideas.