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

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Bilski CLE »

July 01, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2013485267339970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bilski v. Kappos: What Effects on Biotechnology Patents?:

Comments

Kevin,

A very interesting development, but also potentially very worrying/alarming. I originally thought that AMP v. USPTO might be the first of these cases where the Federal Circuit would grapple with the "fuzzy" ruling from SCOTUS in Bilski about what is patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. But I also recognized the tension between Prometheus and Classen. How the Federal Circuit will reconcile this tension in view of this "fuzzy" Bilski ruling from SCOTUS is anyone's guess.

Kevin - Well done. Thanks

One point I'd like to add, is that 5 justices seem to believe that little patentable subject matter falls outside the MOT test.

Regarding the MOT test, the Stevens concurrence states: “Few, if any, processes cannot effectively be evaluated using these criteria.” The Breyer concurrence continues, “the Court intends neither to deemphasize the test’s usefulness nor to suggest that many patentable processes lie beyond its reach.”

Granted, one of the five justices in this group is retiring, but his likely replacement signed the government's brief endorsing the MOT test.

In addition, no justices seemed to believe that patentable subject matter stretched as broadly as any method producing a “useful, concrete, and tangible result”.

Dear Mark:

I see the court's "affirmance" of the MOT test as a failsafe - if you can draft a claim for your invention that passes the test, your subject matter is patent-eligible. I also agree that the CAFC's "UCT" test from State Street is (or at least can be) overbroad. I am still thinking about a consistent rationale for making the distinction between Prometheus and Classen (and Metabolite), but it certainly appears that claims reciting technological steps that cannot be cast as mere "data comparisons" are more likely than not to pass muster.

Thanks for the comment.

Software patents should be abolished altogether. Canada is one country, among a growing number of them, that does not allow for patenting of software per se. Because most, if not all major software companies are American, the US government actively lobbying for proliferation of software patents. http://www.pinskylaw.ca

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