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

« Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Sequenom v. Ariosa | Main | Court Report »

June 27, 2016

Comments

From the frying pan of 101 to the fires of 103...

Of course, the larger picture here would have recognized the historical foundation of 103 to begin with and would have reminded the Supreme Court that their parading around naked in the context of that historical development is very much a part of the problem of their desire to stick their fingers into the nose of wax of 101, while pretending that the reason why Congress acted to install 103 had nothing to do with the "gist of the invention" mess that the Supreme Court had previously visited upon patent law in a prior age of "the only valid patent is one that has not yet appeared before us."

Will some small child point out this lack of clothing to the emperors?

I remain....

Judge Newman has the guts to (politely) tell SCOTUS to stick their 101 jurisprudence up their behinds, and the smarts to show us to do that. Sadly, she is the only judge on the CAFC possessing either quality.

"From the frying pan of 101 to the fires of 103..."

Would that more supposedly 101-cases would proceed in such manner. I am really heartbroken about Sequenom, but most of these recent 101 cases are not tragedies (where a genuinely worthy patent is tanked). They are simply bad law, because they represent efforts to make 101 do the work that should be done by 103 or 112.

If Bascom's claims fail some other section of title 35, it will trouble me not at all. I am very glad, however, to see that they survived (so far) 101 challenge.

It's inevitable that some kind of preliminary patentability inquiry will be worked into court procedure.

However, Newman still has no answer for the tautology of an abstract patent being ineligible because its abstract- with no definition of abstract offered.

Mineseems as good as any, and maybe better than most.


The comments to this entry are closed.

February 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