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


« Supplemental Brief for Appellees in AMP v. USPTO | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

July 19, 2012


In this brief Myriad argues just how brain dead they really are and how bad they are at reading Prom.

"no appellate court has ruled a product patent ineligible since the 1952 Act,"

True, nobody bothered to argue against them properly until I started bellyaching about it on your interwebs. It is amazing really, how bad at patent law patent lawlyers were not 10 years ago.

"Striking them down, despite the reliance of the inventive and investing communities on the well-established rule, would send a shiver up the spines of future investors and commercial research and development -- and not just in molecular diagnostics."

No, it would send a shiver up the spine of the legions of drafters and that is about all. Inventors will keep right on along inventing and getting claims that do not overreach into claiming on judicially exempt subject matter. Just as they have for centuries before the modern lawlyer messed up patent law for the past few decades requiring a slew of judicial correction from the USSC.

"Myriad's claims are not, the brief argues, because they are claiming just what the inventors invented: isolated BRCA gene encoding DNA molecules, "not any of the other 20,000 human or other genes." "

I have heard better arguments against the preemption doctrine being applied out of AI.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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