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

« USPTO Issues Notice of Roundtable and Request for Comments on Importing Prior Art Automatically and Streamlining Patent Issuance | Main | USPTO News Briefs »

September 13, 2016

Comments

My biggest problem with the decision is that it is an absolute mush and a false rehashing of the actual history of the prior Supreme Court decisions in an attempt to make the 101 jurisprudence seem to be on some steady evolving course of clarity (where no such clarity is indeed possible given the actual decisions).

For example, conveniently left out in the retelling was that Benson and Flook were cabined by Diehr (see Bilski), and yet, the very parts cabined are being reborn and placed next to Diehr as if there is no disparity.

Instead of new and actual clothes, we are just being asked to admire the "new" nakedness of this season's fashion line as some "improvement" over last season's fashion line of nakedness.

Anyone who actually studies the Supreme Court decisions - including noting exactly who said what when (and why) would quickly realize the falsity in the "new" narrative.

As another example, the "warning" in Chakrabarty is conveniently nowhere to be seen.

I bet when you guys originally launched a "Biotech & Pharma Patent Law & News Blog," you had no idea how much time you would end up spending to cover § 101 software cases. It is funny how the SCotUS had brought us pharma types together with the software people.

My humble suggestion for a new tag line:

"Patent Docs: Biotech, Pharma, Software, and Business Methods"

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