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

« Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LCC (2014) | Main | Webinar on Determining and Correcting Patent Inventorship »

January 23, 2014

Comments

I stopped reading - not because I disagree - but in fact because of the exact opposite.

I will continue reading, but I must pause, and I must say that I cannot agree any more strongly with your views and answers to the first two questions.

It's as if I wrote those answers myself.

A note on the Monsanto patent:

'605 did expire on October 4, 2011. There is not any provision in the patent law that would give 20 years from grant.

Perhaps the questioner is asking why Monsanto still has patent coverage on RR soy when this particular patent has expired. The easy answer is because they have multiple patents that are relevant to RR soy, the last being RE39247 (excluding 3rd party patents that may be relevant), which expires May 27, 2014. This is why they still have coverage, not because of a patent provision extending the '605 patent.

Dr. Noonan,

The compromise reached was either 17 years from issue or 20 years FROM FILING - not a 17 or 20 from the same point.

Dear Skeptical and Matt:

I agree - what is confusing is that the PTO does not reflect my (and your) understanding. So PAIR is just wrong, and I can live with that.

Thanks.

" Giles Rich and P.J. Federico included Section 103 to strip from the Court its ability to judge patentability by the Justices' subjective opinion of whether a claimed invention was sufficiently "inventive." Similar to the standard Justice Breyer resurrected in Mayo v. Prometheus."

I don't see much "subjectivity" in Breyer's analysis of eligibility in the Mayo case.

Did Rich and Federico intend to allow applicants to effectively claim "new" mental steps by appending such steps to old processes? If so, they weren't very clear about that. Or they weren't intelligent enough to realize what they were doing.

I'm surprised that this wasn't discussed at your meeting but maybe people come to such meetings to hear what they want to hear.

It appears that Malcolm Mooney has spawned another sockpuppet.

PatentDocs, get well soon.

Skeptical,

Your last comment is "spot on." The "Did Rich and Federico intend to allow applicants to effectively claim 'new' mental steps by appending such steps to old processes?" is a dead giveaway of who is really behind this comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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 31