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

« Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (Fed. Cir. 2011) | Main | Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) »

August 02, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201543436c05e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AMP v. USPTO: Judge Moore's Concurring Opinion:

Comments

Kevin,

Nice summary of Judge Moore's concurring opinion. While we may not be happy with Moore considering isolated gene sequences not to be patent-eligible on a strict structure/chemical/molecular biology basis, she at least recognizes the reality of overturning what the USPTO has done for 30 or so years in granting patents to isolated gene sequences. Compared to her horrible Classen "microopinion," Moore's concurrence here is a definite step up. She appears to be "growing-up" as a Federal Circuit judge and I applaud her for that.

I know I am months behind the times, but I like how Moore takes a more detailed (albeit messier) approach than the majority, and scrutinizes the isolated DNA claims in three separate classes, because her analysis leaves no doubt that at the very least, cDNA claims are patentable no matter how you look at them.

I also find it hard to disagree with Moore that isolated DNA claims to the full gene sequence are much fuzzier w.r.t. patentability. By stating as much, and then resorting to historical precedent, at least she is calling a spade a spade.

Interestingly, after she goes through her analysis, her dismissal of the magic microscope in part IV of her concurrence involves bolstering the majority's chemical differences test. So although she concurred in the judgment, I am not convinced that she ultimately falls appreciably far from the majority at all.

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