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

« AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2017) »

August 15, 2017

Comments

Aside from the obvious takeaway of "It's a crapshoot" and the (should be) equally obvious nod to Void for Vagueness (which is surprisingly absent from academic discussions), how are any of these "luck of the panel" decisions honoring the supposed effect of stare decisis and the fact that any secondary panel should not be contradicting a previous panel (that's for an en banc group to do)?

Who is in charge of making sure the judges of the CAFC adhere to this concept?

"Regardless, this case once again reminds us that when dealing with a § 101 contention, what is said in the specification is important."

Hey Michael,

Absolutely correct when considering patent-eligibility or any other patentability issue. This case illustrates the huge danger of district courts trying to resolved intensely factual issues like patent-eligibility on summary judgment/12(b)(6) motions. That Hughes (the dissenter) doesn't get this problem is mind-boggling.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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