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.

Become a Fan

« Wyeth v. Abbott Laboratories (Fed. Cir. 2013) | Main | Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013) »

June 27, 2013

Comments

Michael,

What have here is a power struggle between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit over who will be the primary arbiter of patent law jurisprudence In this Ultramercial decision, Chief Judge Rader has definitely thrown the “gauntlet” down before the Supreme Court to either clarify their "fuzzy" Bilski decision, or “shut up” and let the Federal Circuit do the job that Congress intended it to do when it was created back in 1982, namely to be the primary arbiter of patent law jurisprudence. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will take up the “gauntlet” thrown down by Rader.

Much better write up than Lemley's over on Patently-O. Lemley ignores the procedural posture -- that all factual inferences resolved in favor of the patentee at the 12(b)(6) stage -- and babbles on about importing limitations from the specification. Applying this case will be tough based on the odd pseudo-construction the court had to use to evaluate under 101.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2016

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