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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Facts, Perhaps the Antidote to the Anti-gene Patenting Plague | Main | USPTO Seeks Comments Regarding 2010-2015 Strategic Plan »

July 19, 2010

Comments

Trying to save a sinking ship? I guess if you know you can't win the appeal on the merits, you try whatever you can.

Don,

The gall and arrogance of the ACLU hath no limits in this case. I can't ever recall an appellate judge, much less a chief judge, being asked to recuse themselves. In my opinion, this recusal motion by them is a huge tactical error. I hope (and expect) that this motion blows up in their face.

You should at least give some attribution to the reporter who broke this story. This is shameful.

Noonan, if you can prove you copied the briefs before IP Law 360 did, the fine. If not, correct your error and post a note saying that you learned of the motion and its contents through the Law360 article.

Be fair, Noonan.

More political grandstanding by the ACLU. They're totally shameless.

When Steven Colbert spoofed the case they also complained. At the very least, they lack a sense of humor.
Let's hope they go after the bottled water industry next, for violating our Due Process rights to free and unimpeded self-hydration.

Joe Reporter:

We have corrected our oversight and provided a link to the IP LAW360 report authored by Richard Vanderford. Patent Docs thanks IP LAW360 for making the motion and response available to the patent community.

Don

Don,

It appears that the real reason behind Plaintiffs-Appellees may be seen in Part III of Judge Rader's dissent in In re Bilski (see http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/07-1130.pdf at p. 128 of the pdf). Judge Rader appears to be very open to making diagnostic innovations patent-eligible. The fact that he was a speaker on two panels appear to be convenient excuses.

Idk guys, you know I like Rader and all but as a a reasonable and informed observer to this I reasonably question the Chief Judge Rader's impartiality in this case. In fact, he appears to be very partial to a particular side.

I also note that, indeed, Rader's answer to the water question is a non-sequitur of epic proportions. One doesn't claim the filtered water, one claims the water filters. That was the entire point of the guy's question, which appears to be lost on you people who have a severe aversion to engaging in the pursuit of furthering the Useful Arts.

6, oh wise and judgmental number,

On what grounds do you come to your conclusion regarding the Chief Judge?

First the fact that I reasonably question the Chief Judge Rader's impartiality in this case is not a conclusion. It is a fact. That is in fact the only thing which I can confirm as an actual fact in the following post.

Second, the conclusion which I did reach, that he appears to be very partial to a particular side is based upon consideration of the appearance of the following facts.

He apparently did knowingly attend a conference full of people whom have already sent him an amicus breif and did engage amorously therewith. Indeed, the fact appears to be that he put forth his position on the matter, stating that the law has nothing to do with the question at hand, and rather is based solely upon what one believes in one's soul, or is, in other words, political. Therefore, his decision cannot be expected by the reasonable person to be based upon the law, but rather upon his political beliefs, or what he "believes in his soul".

I take this opportunity to note that plainly his assertion that there are no neutral steps he can apply in order to judge based on the law, rather than what he believes in his soul is false, though they are not widely publicized steps. I recently wrote some of them up on PO, and you can find them there. I can give you a link if you wish.

Finally, I note first that, factually speaking, Rader is a very smart guy. Indeed it would appear as if he is way too smart to submit a non-sequitur in response to a question unless he has a specific reason to. It does further thus appear that, factually speaking, he did knowningly attend a conference lecture being put on by other people and did attempt to verbally smear one person's position by the presentation of a blatant non-sequitur, again indicating that his position on the issue that will soon be before the court has no logical basis or basis in the law but is instead founded upon only his personal/political beliefs "in his soul". Indeed, it appears that, factually speaking, he is publicly espousing his position on what he considers to be a political belief rather than an actual application of the law to a particular case.

The people and "other people" referred to above are the two parties in a case.

I therefore conclude that he is partial to one side based upon, what he, himself, believes to be his political beliefs or his beliefs in his soul, these being explicitly different than a matter of law.

I note that, lest Rader think I am smearing him, or otherwise libeling him etc, I should conclude by noting that he is a great guy overall and I am one of his biggest fans. The above is merely what appears from the facts as they have been presented to me, not as I am reporting as actual facts. I also note that it appears to me that he was likely just participating in good fun at the events, as his demeanor is well known, but one has to be careful about those kinds of things in his position.

I note further that I am one of the people on this very site whom have noted that indeed, the determination might be political or based on "what you believe in your soul". But that doesn't mean that I don't expect the judiciary to do their damdest to uphold only the law.

abstract grounds, of course.

Wow! 6, I urge you to write up your comment in the form of an amicus brief supporting ACLU's motion. It would be a sure winner!

6,

So the facts that lead you to your conclusion are:

1. Chief Judge Rader "attend a conference full of people whom have already sent him an amicus breif [sic]" - this is a fact

2. Chief Judge Rader "did engage amorously therewith" - this is a conclusion

3. Chief Judge Rader "put forth his position on the matter, stating that the law has nothing to do with the question at hand, and rather is based solely upon what one believes in one's soul, or is, in other words, political" - so he provided his understanding as to SCOTUS Bilski's test

4. Chief Judge Rader asserted that "there are no neutral steps he can apply in order to judge based on the law" - again providing his understanding as to SCOTUS Bilski's test with which you disagree

5. Chief Judge Rader provided "a non-sequitur in response to a question" - a conclusion not a fact

6. Chief Judge Rader "did attempt to verbally smear one person's position by the presentation of a blatant non-sequitur, again indicating that his position on the issue that will soon be before the court has no logical basis or basis in the law but is instead founded upon only his personal/political beliefs 'in his soul'" - I do not understand this point at all (sorry 6, I'm an odd #)

So you seem to be saying that because he was present at a meeting organized by an organization that authored an amicus in a prior case and because he criticized the SCOTUS test he may be asked to apply (and which position you disagree), he should recuse himself because he gives an appearance of impartiality. I probably misunderstood your points, because that just does not seem right.

"I probably misunderstood your points,"

You did. And you also have trouble distinguishing facts from conclusions.

Let me bottom line it for you. Rader has stated, apparently, that he believes that the question that will soon be before the court can only be decided based upon political beliefs, or what one believes in one's soul RATHER than on the law.

I do not take issue with him having an opinion, I take issue with his opinion being that the law is simply not applicable, and he'd have to decide based on what is in his soul or his political beliefs.

If that doesn't catch your attention at all then I'm afraid we're at an empasse as you apparently don't understand the fundamentals of what we expect from the judiciary. In case you're simply not aware, we expect application of the law to the case at hand, not politics, not what they believe in their soul, but rather, application of the law.

"and he'd have to decide based on what is in his soul or his political beliefs."

Reminds me of Stevens.

Does that make me a chinese slave?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2017

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