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
Juristant #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

« Senators Let FDA Know Their Intent Regarding Data Exclusivity Provisions of PPACA | Main | New House Judiciary Chairman Outlines Resolutions »

January 12, 2011

Comments

Don,

The ACLU may have convinced Judge Sweet to accept this hogwash. But with exception of Judge Dyk, the Federal Circuit won't accept it.

A work of art. Simply a work of art. My hat is off to the attorney arguing the case.

If cases on appeal regarding 101 had similar representation we could have avoided some of the recent missteps taken by the Fed.

From page 8 of the ACLU Brief:

"This case is not about genetic engineering, new drugs, or new methods of sequencing. It's about the validity of certain patent claims on human genes."

Once again, the ACLU mischaracterizes what Myriad has claimed, which is the "isolated" genes. With possibly the exception of Judge Dyk, the Federal Circuit will not be amused by this mischaracterization.

So an isolated human gene is no longer a human gene? Does it magically become an ape gene? Or perhaps a spider gene?

What are you getting at EG?

6,

Once more, like Kevin has already told you, YOU DON'T KNOW BIOTECHNOLOGY.

That's why I asked whether or not an isolated gene magically becomes an ape gene or a spider gene.

But since you don't want to help me out on a rather simple issue then I suppose that'll just have to be that.

And lets be clear EG, you (and Kev et al. too perhaps?) are both playing off a matter of semantics in arguing that the gene is no longer a human gene. The fact is that there are specific concerns here, and it is "fair to say" what the ACLU said, and "fair to say" what you want to say. But the fact that it is fair to say what you'd like to does not negate it being fair for them to say what they did.

Oh and btw, this isn't all as complicated as you want to make it out to be, I read, and remember Kev's presentation and understand exactly where both sides are coming from.

Examiner 6 posted that his office is just down the hall from SPE Georgia Epps of AU 2878. Somebody please post a list of all of the junior examiners on that hall so that we can identify Examiner 6. It shouldn't be too hard to recognize his terrible writing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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