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

« Patent Profile: VM Institute of Research Receives Patent for Method of Treating Triple Negative Breast Cancer | Main | USPTO Issues Guidance for Analyzing Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting Laws of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena or Natural Products »

March 03, 2014

Comments

The CAFC opinions are getting... goofier and goofier

By their logic, a "specific" machine would be one and exactly one machine, and no other machine, to make it "specific." Never mind that any computer scientist will tell you a general computer programmed in a particular way is a different "machine."

Michael,

The patentee here couldn't have drawn a worst panel (Dyk, Lourie and Wallach) for reviewing the patent-eligibility issue. That Dyk misconstrued what is being claimed here isn't surprising. Frankly, Dyk is "poison" when it comes to patent-eligibility issues.

If I recall correctly it was J. Dyk who wrote in an opinion, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I don't care what the claims say, I'm going to look to the specification to figure out what the patentee invented."

He needs to go.

This one has me scratching my head. I am thinking of looking at the District Court proceedings to see if Cyberfone's counsel was precluded from making certain arguments that would have rebutted the positions taken by the CAFC.

Regardless, it seems that this case would be a candidate for en banc review, at least because the panel seems to have erred in terms of both law and facts.

To paraphrase a well-known pundit, people should not be able to patent phones any more.

Of course, this logic leads to not being able to patent anything, but the person who put forth the comment is not known for their grasp of logic, of law, of facts,...

Who needs Duell?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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