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

« Skeptical St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Requests Discovery Regarding Panel Selection Circumstances | Main | Webcast on Paragraph IV Litigation »

January 04, 2018


May I draw attention to a 2007 paper by my friend David Musker entitled "The great free beer debate, or what ales the patent system." It was given away free, but now I think you have to buy a copy from Oxford University Press.

It deals with the patentability of beer as such under the European Patent Convention and records the attitudes of such predatory corporate giants as International Brewing Machines. One of his points is that the objection to the patent protection for beer as such was based on its stupefying effect, such that after a prolonged novelty search those who had been carrying the search out could no longer remember the results.

Possibility the same difficulty could arise in the case of cannabis patents.

I had an application rejected for being “illegal”. It was on the use of fluoride in early pregnancy to prevent birth defects. Not only is prenatal fluoride illegal, but I was also hit on this logic: I could not afford a clinical trial, therefore I could never get labeling, therefore no utility.
(Ancient long CIP: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ryekrte116u79o/Osteo%20CIP%205%2012-98%20for%20dropbox.doc?dl=0 )

Thanks for the insight Paul! We'll check it out and report back; but it seems like an interesting and colorful potential corollary.

That's a tough result, Ray. Illegality is one of those rarely-used 101 rejections that can be incredibly difficult to controvert. Thanks for sharing!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

January 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