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.

Become a Fan

« Q&A from Webinar on Top Patent Law Stories of 2015 | Main | Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016) »

January 24, 2016

Comments

"The § 101 inquiry may contain underlying factual issues, but here, the Federal Circuit performed the § 101 analysis without resolving fact issues."

Hey Joe,

Another serious problem with the broken Alice test for determining patent-eligibility under 35 USC 101 that this case brings out: the factual record is deemed either irrelevant or can be ignored at the court's leisure. How can you make determinations that something is a "fundamental economic practice," can be "implemented without a computer," etc., without factual evidence to support it. In essence, the Federal Circuit is improperly encouraging taking judicial notice of facts that are not like the "sun rises in the east and sets in the west."

I'll be frank: patent-ineligibility determinations under 35 USC 101 are being used by the judiciary to improperly avoid the factual determinations required to determine obviousness under 35 USC 103. If you did this sort of thing with a determination under 35 USC 103 (as should have been done), failure to make/consider findings of fact would be a fatal flaw in the judgment in view of Graham v. John Deere. And this mess is primarily the fault of the Royal Nine.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2016

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