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

« IPR Update -- The First Pharma IPR Decisions | Main | IPO Names Top 100 Patenting Universities »

July 23, 2014

Comments

Michael,

This first post-grant review by the PTAB applying Alice Corp painfully illustrates why the logic of Our Judicial Mount Olympus on patent-eligibility is nonsensical and utterly violates the fundamental principle of Diehr that the claimed invention shouldn't be dissected as Alice Corp did. Also, how can this method be carried out "automatically and in real time" if not integrally linked with a computer? In other words, and contrary to what the PTAB says, this is more than just doing something "faster and more efficiently." Again, judge the claimed method for patentability under 35 USC 103, not patent eligibility under 35 USC 101.

"more likely than not" for a granted patent...

Noting the posture - and not the end result - clearly indicates that a stick in the bundle of property rights has been taken away by an executive agency Article I court.

Not even Congress is allowed to write a law that violates the takings clause of a (already granted) property right, property being one of the fundamental rights protected by the Due Process clause. This is not to say that the government can NOT take away a property right - they surely can. But here, there is an evident lack of the protections that must exist when such a taking by the government happens. When those protections are absent - as here - the law is unconstitutional.

Great result! I'm glad to see the PTO applying the recent Supreme Court decisions accurately and fairly. This is exactly the result that most people are looking for and more decisions like this will certainly improve the utility of the patent system overall.

Jeff C.,

What is the utility of the patent system in your view?

You state a rather nice sounding soundbyte - but one that seems rather disconnected to a legal understanding.

It seems like a claim which satisfies the second the third prongs for the test (i.e. (ii) must be directed to a business method, and (iii) must not be directed to a technological innovation) will always fail to satisfy 101 under CLS Bank. Can anyone think of an example that does not?

Jeff C.,

Who are "most people"? Perhaps you mean Google, Oracle, Microsoft, Facebook and other big tech?

Most people I know (inventors and small businesses) find this destruction of the patent system and the taking of their rights disgusting, appalling and unjust.

Benjamin,

Can you give me a non-circular definition of "technological"?

I would posit that most every business method can fit into that definition.

Easily.

Having read the PTAB decision, it seems like the claims, and what was said about them in the specification, left the PTAB with little choice. In fairness to the Applicant, in April 2007 when the application was filed, none of us could have imagined the judicial environment post-Alice. Let us remain optimistic that there will be a CBM which is upheld by the PTAB to give us some positive guidance for drafting and prosecution.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

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