E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Interactive Graphic Illustrates How U.S. Patent System Has Driven American Economy | Main | Tech Companies Send Letter on Patent Reform to Secretary Locke »

September 16, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a5775acf970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2009):

Comments

Kevin,

Prometheus is certainly a huge improvement over the ghastly opinion (if you can call it that) in Classen. But Prometheus also highlights how unworkable and subjective the Bilski "machine or transformation" test is.

I don't envy Judge Lourie's task of trying to reconcile the "natural phenomena" prohibition with the Bilski test. (And I don't mind at all that he took a backhanded swipe at Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in Metabolite.) Frankly, Prometheus wastes all this judicial verbiage on what should have been any easy ruling (the claimed method is statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101 without blinking an eye).

The Federal Circuit, as well as SCOTUS, need to drop 35 USC 101 as the primary screen, and instead focus on 35 USC 112, followed by 35 USC 102/103. That's basically what Professor Risch at West Virginia said, and he's got it right.

The court found an easy way out with the "injecting the drug" argument, which clearly is a transformative step. My concern is for those diagnosis claims that do not have such a clear step of administering or obtaining a sample or performing a reaction. Although this is somewhat of a relief for medical diagnosis claims, we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court does with Bilski.

Hi!

Congratulations! Your readers have submitted and voted for your blog at The Daily Reviewer. We compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 patenting Blogs, and we are glad to let you know that your blog was included! You can see it at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/patents

Cheers!

Angelina Mizaki
Selection Committee President
The Daily Reviewer
http://thedailyreviewer.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30