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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


  • "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.


Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (2017) »

June 11, 2017


This patent represents the kind of garbage that discredits the patent system in the minds of the public and risks undermining the efforts of many of us over the past 5 years to promote a more predictable and balanced interpretation of Section 101.

How did it ever issue from the USPTO? Why did any competent attorney consider that it was worth serious effort in its defence? Would Giles S. Rich, author of the opinion in State Street, have taken this seriously?

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2018

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