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.

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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Chisum on Patent Law Themes and Inequitable Conduct | Main | LEI National CLE Conference »

November 19, 2009

Comments

The problem with the patent office examiners is that most of them neither understand the complexities of the written description case law nor the nuances of the scientific differences being claimed by the present day biotech inventions. In part that is because of the Fed. Cir. seemingly higher burden for biotech patents, because it seems, any thing that relates to biotech appears to be unpredictable and any knowledge of the skilled artisan is uncoupled from the analysis.

In 1911, Judge Hand concluded the opinion in Parke-Davis v. H.K. Mulford Co. with the following paragraph:

I cannot stop without calling attention to the extraordinary condition of the law which makes it possible for a man without any knowledge of even the rudiments of chemistry to pass upon such questions as these. The inordinate expense of time is the least of the resulting evils, for only a trained chemist is really capable of passing upon such facts, e.g., in this case the chemical character of Von Furth's so-called "zinc compound," or the presence of inactive organic substances. In Germany, where the national spirit eagerly seeks for all the assistance it can get from the whole range of human knowledge, they do quite differently. The court summons technical judges to whom technical questions are submitted and who can intelligently pass upon the issues without blindly groping among testimony upon matters wholly out of their ken. How long we shall continue to blunder along without the aid of unpartisan and authoritative scientific assistance in the administration of justice, no one knows; but all fair persons not conventionalized by provincial legal habits of mind ought, I should think, unite to effect some such advance.

Sadly, his call for change went unheeded. As Professor Holman has pointed out, the body of biotechnology case law is rife with inconsistencies. Generalist judges cannot be expected to master the field of molecular biology, so what else can we expect as long as the current model endures?

Dear SKD:

Yes and no. I think that one of the problems with PTO examination is that the kinds of bright-line rules that are easy to apply with simple technology get harder to apply as the technology gets more complex. It isn't that the knowledge of the skilled worker is disregarded, but that the skilled worker knows less a priori the more unpredictable the technology becomes.

Thanks for the comment.

Dear AWD:

What I have always found most bracing about Judge Hand's legal analyses is the courage and humility with which he addressed his own lack of knowledge. He did not (as some current members of the Supreme Court have made it a habit of doing) believe that the science needed to bend to the law. His was not a simple "We decide." Your quotation illustrates his commitment to finding the truth, wherever it may lay and using whatever tools he could command, without the arrogance of thinking that finding and using such tools were beneath the court's notice. We live with the great fiction that judges judge and that we must be satisfied with those judgments; Judge Hand points out that there is another way, if we were only smart enough to admit we should take it.

Thanks for the comment.

Well put, Kevin. Thanks for the reply and for a consistently doing a great job with your blog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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