Courts will just ignore the PTO and the CP can’t solve uncertainty
Adam Mossoff, 24 - Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, United States Senate “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act – Restoring Clarity, Certainty, and Predictability to the U.S. Patent System” 1/24, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-01-23_-_testimony_-_mossoff.pdf //DH
The Alice-Mayo inquiry is one of many recent changes to the U.S. patent system that has called into question the longstanding U.S. claim to a “gold standard” patent system as compared to the rest of the world.5 As a result of the Alice-Mayo inquiry, the USPTO has denied patent applications or courts have invalidated issued patents in cutting-edge discoveries in medical care, such as treatments for breast cancer, diabetes, and strokes, among others.6 The USPTO appears to have corrected course in adopting its 2019 patent eligibility guidelines,7 but these patent examination guidelines are not a panacea. These regulatory guidelines can be easily repealed by a future USPTO director, and they have had no sway with the courts in reviewing the patents issued by the USPTO. Courts continue to apply the Alice-Mayo inquiry to invalidate patents on classic industrial technologies, such as an invention on a new method of manufacturing automobile axles,8 and, in another notorious case, the courts applied the Alice-Mayo inquiry to conclude that the invention of a new remote-controlled garage door opener is an unpatentable abstract idea.9