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

« Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) | Main | Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

February 07, 2018

Comments

The scoreboard is broken.

Whether or not something is conventional is handled under the patent laws of 102 and 103.

Conventionally should be absent from considerations of eligibility - as eligibility is a timeless factor and conventionality is a time-dependent factor.

I other words, something CANNOT be eligible because of non-conventionality “one day” and then become not eligible because the initial thing is well revived, put into use and becomes conventional.

That is simply not what the purpose of 35 USC 101 was drafted BY Congress to serve.

Correct for auto-correct:
“revived” should read as “received”

"In a bit of an ironic outcome, the U.S. government was unsuccessful in invalidating U.S. patents. . . . It seems odd that the government issued the patents on the one hand, and later, tried to invalidate them."

Joe, that happens almost every time a patent infringement case is brought in that court (Fed. Cl. Ct.). And it has done so for years.

Mr. Stern,

The courts should not be "trying to invalidate" as you seem to imply.

The difference here: this case was in the Court of Claims and the Defendant was the United States.

There is a world of difference between a NEUTRAL ARBITER and a party "trying to invalidate."

Granted, given the animus from the Supreme Court, one might be forgiven for misplacing the notion of the "neutral arbiter" - and that is even more an indictment AGAINST the legislating from the bench and the lack of respect for separation of powers that the Supreme Court has rendered with its intrusions into 35 USC 101.

However, given the nature of your own "advocacy" (vis a vis Benson and the like), that you recognize THIS reason as one of abiding concern, well, I remain:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)

February 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