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 | Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

May 20, 2018

Comments

"The claims in this case are directed to abstract ideas. The focus of the claims, as is plain from their terms, quoted above, is on selecting certain information, analyzing
it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract."

Hey Michael,

The above quote is nonsensical and completely circular logic with no definition of what an "abstract idea" is, other than because it "selects," and "analyzes" certain "information" using "mathematical techniques." That sounds like what a computer does-how is that abstract? Note also that this process does generate a result: "a plot of the distribution function"-how in the world is that abstract?

"According to the Court, all of these aspects have been previously found to be abstract, such as in the Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A. decision."

Ouch, that hurts, Mr. Borella.

With CBMs narrowed in scope by the Fed. Cir. [and having only a couple more years of life] 101 declaratory judgment actions against claims like this make sense. What may not make sense is patent owners threatening suits on old pre-Alice mere "improved mathematical analysis" claims like this any more?

Ah yes, Mr. Morgan presents a "makes sense" from an "Ends justify the Means - who cares whether or not innovation is harmed" standpoint.

With "friends" like this, any attempts to promote/protect innovation need no enemies.

Skeptical [aka Anon] what is the difficulty some commentators have in understanding the difference between considering the present legal reality needed for rational client counseling versus one's mere personal wish list for what one would LIKE the law to be? Is merely attacking CLE commentators going to make the law change?

This decision is worse that I originally thought.

Not only is Electric Power cited SIX times, the judges here apply an AWFUL lot of dicta as to what "computerizing" may NOT provide (and even go as far as "redefining" conventional - as if to remove the recent fact-element requirement from "PRO-patent" innovators.

As to Mr. Morgan, I suggest that you view the message LESS of an attack - and see WHY the message is being provided.

In other words, stop whining about "being attacked" when your words THEMSELVES are offensive to those who really are interested in protecting innovation.

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