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

« News from Abroad: Construction of "Swiss" Medical Use Claims in Europe | Main | Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Fed. Cir. 2011) »

December 06, 2011

Comments

Kevin,

What will be interesting at the oral argument tomorrow is whether the Justices (other than Breyer) give any credance to Breyer's dissent in LabCorps v. Metabolite. In my opinion, Mayo and the other "naysayers" are putting way too much emphasis on that dissent (given that two of the Justices who joined that dissent are no longer with the Supreme Court). But we'll see what happens tomorrow, as we wait anxiously to see if we get "clarity" (like in Diamond v. Chakrabarty) as opposed to "fuzziness" (like in Bilski v. Kappos) on the standard for patent-eligibility

"almost a generation ago, 35 U.S.C. § 287(c) exempted from infringement the practice of surgical methods by doctors."

If I read this section correctly, the law does not "exempt from infringement" but blocks one from pursuing a remedy, injunction, damages and attorney fees. The medical practitioner could still be infringing.

Nevertheless, we await clarity on patent-eligibility.

argument transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1150.pdf

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2020

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