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

« Sequenom Petitions for Certiorari | Main | CRISPR Interference Motions Set »

March 22, 2016

Comments

Hey Michael,

Yet another example showing that the broken Alice test is completely untethered to any sort of rational factual determination. The statement by this court that the "Federal Circuit allows district courts to determine whether claim construction is needed for the § 101 analysis" is mind-boggling, as it essentially says that 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph/112(b) can be ignored in any determination of patent-eligibility under 35 USC 101. And as you astutely and correctly point out, the "notion that § 101 is to be assessed as a matter of law is undermined by the introduction of 'prior art.'" What SCOTUS has "sowed" here is "reaping" shameful results having no proper factual foundation other than judicial fiat. (And I'm also not suggesting that this claimed map navigation method might not fall under 35 USC 112, 102 and/or 103 if the factual record had been properly developed.)

Patent suit defendants could have a lot more sympathy for the many complaints like this about these low-cost ab initio Alice 101 decisions, were it not for the fact that the only prior practical alternative in almost all cases was a settlement just to avoid litigation costs with no validity test. Even in the many cases like this where the patent claims seem very vulnerable on 103 or even 112 enablement grounds, when that was even reachable only after several million dollars in discovery burdens and a full blown trial and appeal.
Increased use of IPRs for 103 issues should reduce the need for these Alice-based Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss on the pleadings.

Paul you nailed the key point of the 101 issue. Even an IPR is about a $500K-$700K expense to a determination.

The Alice test is indeed flawed and arbitrary, but the policy result is essential for justice.

What is needed is a stronger doctrine around "abstract ideas" and rules of procedure that allow judges to kill junky patents early in cases with consistency.

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.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

May 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