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

« Court Report | Main | In re Dinsmore (Fed. Cir. 2014) »

June 09, 2014

Comments

Leo: Rader, O'Malley, Reyna
Sanofi: Newman, Linn, Wallach
Hoffman-LaRoche: Lourie and Bryson vs Newman

The take-away here - which I think has been clear to CAFC watchers for a long time - is that if you're a pharma patent holder and you've got any combination of Lourie, Byrson and Prost on your panel you're doomed. If you've got Newman or Rader you at least have a fighting chance.

Thanks for the synopsis.

This just goes to show the infection of 101 is alive and well in 103.

Whenever a judicial body takes it onto itself to weigh "scintillas" and "sufficiency" and declare "well it was obvious" - especially when a dissent strongly says otherwise, my view that the rule of law laid down by such a decision can provide ANY meaning going forward is, well...

The decisions all point towards the need clear elucidation of strong arguments for non-obviousness early in the game. Whatever you do during prosecution, if there is enough money at stake during litigation, your opponent will be making a case for obviousness. That was true before KSR, but it is easier for the opponent after KSR.

The simplest statement of the state of patent law is this:

No person alive can look at any patent and the closest cited references, and conclude, with certainty, that it will be upheld by any U.S. court of law.

The entire body of patent law is collapsing into a smell test - a totally subjective judgment, bolstered by using terms like "obvious," "technical," and "abstract" that have absolutely no defined meaning.

This is the product of:

1) The inability of Congress to pass any measure that makes patent law more definite;

2) The complete lack of leadership of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in clarifying these issues over the last 20 years;

3) The ridiculous bickering and politics within the Federal Circuit, which can't develop a consensus on the color of the sky; and

4) Decades of meddling by the Supreme Court, which happily tears down any objective standard of patentability while refusing to rebuild any of them.

Heebie-Jeebies,

You've been living in a closet if you think Lourie is anti-pharma patent.

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