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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) »

May 17, 2009


It looks like a lot of these claims fail under Bilski.

Dear Pacific:

Not a lot - after all, Bilski is limited to method claims, and the composition of matter claims should be fine.

As for the method claims, I agree that under the Classen/Bilski line there is cause for concern (coupled with Metabolite), but the entire method of diagnosing type of claim is so questionable right now I wouldn't bet either way.

Thanks for the comment.

"Not a lot - after all, Bilski is limited to method claims,"

A commonly held misconception.

Dear 6:

Enlighten us, please. How would you apply the Bilski decision to a composition of matter claim (should you ever have to examine one)?

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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