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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

April 01, 2018

Comments

"in a manner that has made Alice workable in practice."

You have a very odd view of what "workable in practice" means.

The "ping-pong" effect of panel to panel decisions in the 101 space show the very opposite.

An online version of both the HP Petition and the Berkheimer reply would be extremely helpful for this potentially important case, together with, if possible, a list of the amici who have filed briefs so far.

From the standpoint of this alien reader, it is difficult to say that ANY case can be a matter of law devoid of the surrounding facts. Even if the claimed concept is a mere idea or an ineligible natural product, that conclusion flows from a reading of the words of the claim in question, which are themselves of a factual nature. Even if a full interpretation of the claim language is not feasible within the context of section 101 proceedings, an understanding of the claim language(or lack of it!) and of the elements recited within that language underpins all decisions on this subject.

There have in recent times been several deserving petitions for en banc rehearing which have been refused, and there is therefore a likelihood that this case will go the same way. It is possibly in the interests of our profession that this should happen, leaving the present case available as a precedent for the future. But copies of the briefs would be very helpful to enable full understanding of the positions being advanced.

Full quote: "But in the nearly four years since then, the Federal Circuit has not managed to carry out its gap-filling function in a manner that has made Alice workable in practice."

I think we are in agreement.

Sorry Mike - we are in agreement.

I also agree with Mr. Cole in that links to the underlying documents would be very beneficial.

Paul,

Feel free to email me at jdoerre AT ti-law DOT com and I would be happy to send you a copy of the briefs.

So far Amicus briefs have been filed by:

-T-Mobile/Sprint/Verizon (supporting rehearing)
-EFF and R Street Inst. (supporting rehearing)
-some collection of tech alliances (supporting rehearing)

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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