According to 35 U.S.C. § 101, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” may be patentable. Courts and litigants often struggle in determining what falls outside this scope—i.e., what is unpatentable subject matter. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with this issue in a series of appeals between USAA v. PNC Bank (CAFC Nos. 2023-1639, 2023-1778, 2023-1866, 2025-1276, 2025-1277, and 2025-1341), held that the claims in the patents at issue recite unpatentable subject matter, and reversed the entries of judgment for the US$218M and US$4.3M jury verdicts that issued out of the Eastern District of Texas.

On June 4, the SEC published a concept release focusing on whether the current definition of “foreign private issuer” still makes sense in light of dramatic shifts in market structure and issuer profiles. The SEC seeks public comment on whether, and how, it should redefine “foreign private issuer” to better protect investors and promote capital formation.

We previously reported how the PTAB’s institution rate has fallen to approximately 40% in the new administration, with many of those denials stemming from the PTAB’s increased usage of its discretionary denial processes to deny IPR challenges without otherwise addressing the merits of the identified prior art. The latest grant of discretionary denial continues that trend and exemplifies the current challenges in pursuing IPR/PGR invalidity challenges at the U.S. Patent Office.