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 | Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014) »

June 02, 2014

Comments

I think this decision is a mess, and maybe an invitation for the CAFC to rehear en banc to overrule Muniauction?

Don,

As others have commented (see Patently-O and IPWatchdog), this statement in Alito's opinion (abysmal in other regards as well) is mind-boggling:

"What if a defendant pays another to perform just one step of a 12 step process, and no one performs the other steps, but that one step can be viewed as the most important step in the process? In that case the defendant has not encouraged infringement, but no principled reason prevents him from being held liable for inducement under the Federal Circuit’s reasoning, which permits inducement liability when fewer than all of a method’s steps have been performed within the meaning of the patent."

Rader's majority opinion in the Federal Circuit said no such thing. That Alito and the other 8 Justices of Our Judicial Mount Olympus believe that's what the majority opinion said is an embarrassing faux pas, making one question whether they actually read and bothered to understand it. Our Judicial Mount Olympus lives in a "glass house" and this nonsensical opinion by Alito is yet another reason they should stop "throwing rocks" at the Federal Circuit.

How dangerous is it to have a p1ssing contest on the very site of a glass-house rock-throwing fest?

Dragging one's, um, manhood over the shards of such a battlefield is not an advisable course of action, no?

It's one thing to make abysmal statements in an opinion . . . but to do so for a unanimous court is egregious in the extreme. I find it hard to believe that the other justices were paying attention.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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