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


« USPTO News Briefs | Main | Amicus Briefs in AMP v. USPTO: Rosetta Genomics & George Mason University »

December 07, 2010


""promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts,""

That's interesting because I wasn't aware that the useful Arts involved the life sciences and their creation of faux genes anyway.

"While that certainly may have been their intention, in the execution of the brief, this pair of academics debunks most of the public policy rhetoric advanced by the ACLU and PubPat to support their anti-gene patenting agenda"

By "debunks most of the public policy rhetoric" I guess you mean that they reinforced the notion that special interests have a different take on the public policy considerations at issue. Specifically, that they won't make $$$.

6: Getting kinda tedious with the $$$.

You may not be aware, but since you are at the PTO why don't you do some searching on patents in the life sciences pre 1980? Like the patent to Louis Pasteur on a strain of yeast for making wine, for example? That's just a start, but suffice it to say that the problem won't be solved by adopting any definition you have that life sciences are not part of the Useful Arts.

"searching on patents in the life sciences pre 1980? "

I wonder how full those subs are pre-1900? I'm not too sure whey I need to be searching these old patents, and if you're going to suggest that I do, you could at least tell me why I would do such a thing.

"6: Getting kinda tedious with the $$$."

Hey I didn't say anything about you here Kev.

And btw, I had a post posted the other day, rather long one, that never got posted. It may have been lost in the posting process, or you may have just censored it. But it said my bad for the whole making you seem to only be out for $$$.

Still in this particular case, I'm offering you the perspective of anyone reading your article not involved in your industry or patent protectionism for the sake of patent protectionism (see Rader). As much as you might not like it, that's the frank fact of the matter. Nobody is buying this nonsense. Which I admit, is sort of a shame, because it took a long time for you guys to come up with it I'm sure. And because we really would like to live in a utopia where paying for research didn't mean denying people care or jacking the price through the roof and bankrupting individuals and the government alike.

I also lost a longer post for this thread, but it got eaten in the posting process unfortunately and I'm not re-typing it.

"That's just a start, but suffice it to say that the problem won't be solved by adopting any definition you have that life sciences are not part of the Useful Arts."

You're absolutely right Kev, perhaps we need a committee of scholars familiar with the old patent lawl, and not the "new" faux interpretations that are some prevalent, to sort these things out on a subject matter by subject matter basis. Or maybe we could just get the committee in congress to do its job and to make laws for the people that are readily understood by the people.

Or people who are engaging in arts that are blatantly not the useful Arts could simply stop submitting applications for "inventions" to which they are not entitled a patent upon.

There is also an amicus brief from the University of New Hampshire School of Law, in support of reversal. It can be found at:


Good blog! I found your blog on yahoo and have put it in favourites for future reads. Thanks keep it up…..

One big problem with a patent enforcement suit like this one is that the court is bound by patent law not to review claims for how obvious they seem now, but rather for how obvious they were at the time of filing. That's one of the difficulties raised by this kind of case, which asks a judge and/or jury to determine what might or might not have been obvious 20 years before. However, it's up to the court to determine the validity of the patents involved, and Allen has every legal right to use the system to his advantage.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

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