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_165
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


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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report »

February 04, 2018

Comments

"One of the more frustrating aspects of the current judicial patent eligibility framework is the propensity for courts... to carry out the two-part test from Alice... in a conclusory fashion."

This is the understatement of the century!

That frustration is very much part and parcel of the "gift" from the Supreme Court and their "Gist/Abstract" sword.

That sword was provided WITHOUT defining such things as "abstract" or even "significantly more."

Add to that the OBVIOUS incongruity of the body of the various Supreme Court decisions themselves on 101 (paying attention to the historical back and forth as witnessed by some of the writers of the various decisions - instead of ignoring THAT context), and there is ONE inescapable conclusion.

And one (legislative) solution).

Very sadly, the claimed subject matter amounts to little more than I have been doing on my PC for years, and I can see nothing innovative. One does not have to be Skeptical to conclude that this was a fairly hopeless case.

"But the Court remained hung up with the lack of detail in the claim -- recitation of the function to be performed rather than the way that this function is carried out was problematic in the Court's view."

There is precedent going back over 150 years to support this approach.

While perhaps not novel, one CAN hope to conclude that 101 will not be used for novelty.

It appears that you have slipped a little in your appreciation of our law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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