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

« Top Stories of 2015: #11 to #15 | Main | eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015) »

January 05, 2016

Comments

Sigh. Yet another case involving Section 112 issues again improperly disguised as a Section 101 issue. The insane conflation caused by the broken and nonsensical Alice test continues.

I recall a congressional hearing last summer involving Miss Lee and a Congressman's question as to whether software as an invention would still be protected after the Alice decision - with every indication by the Congressman that such inventions are of the type meant to be protected by the Patent Act.

Congress needs to wake up. History has repeated and the current age is FAR WORSE than the anti-patent age of pre-1952.

"The Defendant argued that the encoding scheme and algorithm provide the 'inventive concept' needed to render the claims patent-eligible."

Why is the defendant arguing for validity? Doesn't the defendant want the patent to fail? Did you mean to say that the plaintiff argued for an "inventive concept"?

"Because the claims are broad, the description of prior art or known concepts in the patent itself worked against any arguments alleging that the claims describe an inventive concept"

Also, yet another court decision effectively encouraging applicants to minimize or eliminate the Background Section of a patent application and to not include a discussion of the prior art or what was known.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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