USPTO Issues Preliminary Alice Corp. Instructions and Invites Comments
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.02.14
On June 25, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark (USPTO) issued its Preliminary Alice Corp. Instructions on the application of the United States Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., No 13-298. The Preliminary Alice Corp. Instructions provide guidance to USPTO examiners when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims involving abstract ideas. The USPTO provided the following guidance:
- The USPTO will expand the two-part test set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 56 U.S. ___ (2012) to abstract ideas. Prior to Alice, the USPTO only applied the Mayo two-part test to claims involving laws of nature. See MPEP 2106.01.
- The USPTO will apply the Mayo two-part test across all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims).
- Finally, the USPTO set forth the Mayo two-part test in detail, including several comments and examples.
The USPTO invited comments on the Preliminary Alice Corp. Instructions. Comments must be submitted by July 31, 2014, and instructions to provide comments is listed on the USPTO website.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
