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

« LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | Yeda Research and Development Co. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2016) »

September 21, 2016

Comments

In the immortal words of Scooby Do:

Rut Ro.

"With the rapidly evolving § 101 landscape, it is often difficult to determine whether a District Court's reasoning will be influential on other courts. Here, the discussion of mental activities is in line with the recent Federal Circuit McRo v. Bandai decision"

Just one of many reasons that McRo is going to swirl down the toilet in no time.

But go ahead and celebrate "the pendulum swinging back." Because the world needs more incredibly junky patent claims like this one, and more blogs to cheer them on.

"In an illustrative example, the patent describes video capture of a tennis match, through which sensor and pre-existing data may include ... score information".

Wow, that's really impressive and totally unlike any information previously obtained and stored, ever.

I'm blown away. It's like living in the far distant future, if the present is five hundred years ago. Will miracles ever cease?

"The Court declined to take this approach, noting that it "must accept the specification's assertions —at least with respect to the claimed invention's advantages over prior art— to be true on their face"

Because "do it on a computer" junksters never, ever engage in hyperbole or deception for the purpose of impressing "investors".

This judge is from New York, right? I've got a bridge nearby to sell him. Maybe PatentDocs wants to get on the deal, too? Just let me know.

Could the new moniker belong to the selfsame poster who becries "sock puppets" (and who has slinked away from Dr. Noonan's "transperancy challenge"...?

Would this person be able to separate his own (rampant) duplicity and be able to carry on - in any sense of a legitimate and inte11ectually honest manner - a real legal discussion?

I remain....

Hey Skeptical, ever notice the similarities in sounds between "memory motel" and "mystery machine"...and "malcolm mooney"?

Atari Man,

The similarities are more than just the monikers - the similarities are in the "style" (to debase that term), and lack of legal content.

Plenty of emotion laden rhetoric though.

No precedent and not much chance a Fed. Cir. panel would agree, but a good example of why, as a defendant, if you get a D.C. judge who refuses to dismiss under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion contending that the claims of the patent failed to meet the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 [even if well founded], you may then have to pay to settle. Because there is then no way to stop discovery costs and the march towards trial, as that judge is even LESS likely to grant S.J. for 103. [There is no interlocutory appeal from either denial, of course.]
This is another reason for filing a parallel IPR filed as soon as you get sued, and ask for a stay, which is now occurring more than 1300 times a year [albeit that is still far less than the total of D.C. infringement suits filed per year], instead of counting on the grant of an Alice based [not actually 101] 12(b)(6) unpatentable “abstract” and/or “preemption” claimed subject matter motion.

Re: "The Court .. noting that it "must accept the specification's assertions—at least with respect to the claimed invention's advantages over prior art—to be true on their face."" That does not seem consistent with other cases like this, and I am curious where this D.C. found that authority? [This is not quite the same as even assuming that allegations in the Complaint itself must be accepted as true at this stage?]

Paul,

As the Court stated, "On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in
the pleadings and draws all inferences in plaintiffs’ favor." This is procedurally correct.

Mike

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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