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

« Pernix Ireland Pain DAC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. (D. Del. 2018) | Main | Webcast on Patent Portfolio Management »

June 13, 2018

Comments

You can touch the pipe; if it fell on you you'd be injured; if you got stuck in it you might suffocate or, if water was moving through it, drown. No sentient being would argue that a method for moving that pipe is abstract. Neither would most lawyers, and those who do should be sanctioned for setting forth such a frivolous and clearly meritless argument.

Two patent-friendly decisions in succession! Perhaps times are truly beginning to change.

I suppose that on the record that this may be deemed unconventional (realizing that the Office providing the factual predicates of proving conventionality may be absent), but in no way is this even close to being non-obvious.

Changing the order of steps, to yield the expected result, is textbook obvious. If you can't win this on 103, your 101 argument isn't going to stick to the wall either.

Hey Don,

Frankly, this motion to dismiss should have received sanctions. The assertion of patent-ineligibility is absurd in the extreme.

"[T]his motion to dismiss should have received sanctions."

Too true. The law on § 101 used to be a smoothly flowing stream, and then the SCotUS dropped a boatload of cement in the channel. The resulting obstruction caused the running stream to overflow its banks and destroy all of the surrounding patent landscape. Mercifully, the lower courts (lead by the saner faction of the CAFC) are patiently digging channels and building sluices to redirect the errant rivulets back into their proper channels. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, the damage will be repaired, and the waters will simply be flowing *around* the SCotUS's ill-conceived dam, back to their proper and former destination. We will know that we have reached that day when motions like this to dismiss on § 101 grounds are sanctioned for their transparent meritlessness.

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.)

June 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