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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« CRISPR Interference Motions Set | Main | 32nd Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar »

March 24, 2016

Comments

Hey Joe,

PTAB's alleged factual basis for viewing this being a CBM patent is flimsy at best and unpersuasive to me. It essentially relies upon where this patent was classified which the patent applicant had no choice over. Indeed, under the PTAB's reasoning ANY data processing method could be deemed a CBM patent, whether or not it relates to "financial products or services."

16 years between priority date and issue? Whole industries can grow up, mature, and die out in that span. How can justice be served when many people have invested and built on widely spread technology without any reference or knowledge of the patent ?

If the steps were obvious in 1997 what the hell is the office doing in 2013 with them? Seems to me that point is more critical than the CBM question.

The abuse of continuation practice is an utter scandal.

The Fed. Cir. has twice held that it will accept such challenges to institution of CBMs, in the appeal of the final decision, but has not yet sustained one, I believe? Since it is a legal question of CBM statute interpretation it could even be appealed on to the Sup. Ct.
However, the whole CBM program will automatically sunset for any new CBM petitions on September 16, 2020. So this issue will relatively soon become moot. That could discourage the Sup. Ct. from taking it up.

A self-correcting problem, Martin - almost all US applications are published since 2000 (and thus the notice function is satisfied). Without actual notice no damages accrued in the interim and the patent will expire in about two years. There is no evidence in the record that the patentee delayed prosecution; indeed, provisions that the Office prevent an applicant from pursuing a meritorious (until recently) invention by continuation were roundly criticized. If not for the AIA and the Supreme Court's recent change in how the patent eligibility of such claims are assessed there would be no injustice here except the perceived delay, which can just as easily be placed at the Office's doorstep. After all the Office eventually allowed the claims so the proper question might be: what took them so long?

Thanks for the comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2017

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