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

« Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. J. Crew Group, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016) | Main | Investment in Biotechnology Companies -- Nature Biotechnology Report »

August 30, 2016

Comments

A 10,000 foot approach is not appropriate: attention to detail is needed. Judges should keep their feet on the ground, as they did here.

This remains an isolated case, and actually highlights the problem inherent in the "effective writing - or re-writing - of patent law by the US Supreme Court.

Since the US Supreme Court laid out NO guidance as to what is the appropriate "level" to "Gist" any particular claim (there is NO 1 foot, 10 foot, 100 foot, 1,000 foot or 10,000 foot 'demarcations'), each and every court will be engaging in what can only be called an "arbitrary demarcation" effort.

For the "purists" that want to maintain that the Supreme Court has not violated the separation of powers outright and maintain that they have only "interpreted" existing statutory law, the problem remains that THEIR "interpretation" has rendered that underlying law Unconstitutional as being void for vagueness.

Draw a different judge or a different panel, and you are guaranteed to have very different results.

Congress simply must step in.

Sooner, rather than later.

@skeptical - Congress certainly should step in, but it seems to me that we've got lots of bigger problems than patent subject-matter eligibility. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah right,

I am sure that there are tons of other issues vying for attention.

It also does not help that with rulings like "Citizens United," Congressmen have plenty of other "voices" in their ears (and in their pockets).

But you will have to indulge me when I consider that innovation (which the patent system undoubtedly greatly amplifies) is an EASY way forward that brings a win/win to BOTH sides of the Quid Pro Quo.

If you just want to neigh-say; then consider yourself part of the problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 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