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


« Court Report | Main | CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) -- Opinions by Judge Moore, Judge Newman, and Judges Linn and O'Malley »

May 20, 2013


"A court cannot go hunting for abstractions by ignoring the concrete, palpable, tangible limitations of the invention the patentee actually claims."

Funny thing is, nobody disputes this Rader, it is only in your mind in which there is some sort of dispute.

One does not hunt for abstractions by ignoring. One hunts for abstractions by simply thinking about the subject matter.

"Indeed, he strongly implied that Judge Lourie's approach could be used to render virtually any claim abstract."

People can sit and imply that, or even say it out loud all they wish. But it is funny, you never see them actually take a traditionally patent eligible claim and actually "render it abstract", whatever ridiculousness that is supposed to mean. Why? Because it is unpossible. Completely unpossible.

"Acknowledging that issue before the Federal Circuit was whether to grant CLS's motion for summary judgment, he found that there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence that the claims were directed to an abstract idea."

An absurdity in the 101 context.

"it would seem that a claim embodying the machine itself, with all its structural and functional limitations"

A functional limitation does not "embody" anything Rader. Come on bro, this is simple stuff. Even if Rader means the "structural" combined with the functional as being what "embodies" a machine that also is just plain ridiculous. The only thing, if anything, that "embodies" a machine in that situation is the structure.

"Particularly, in determining that the concept of an escrow is abstract,"

Oh but Judge Rader would never ignore limitations and deem the claim abstract! Lulz. Not.

"Finally, Chief Judge Rader indicated that that method claims recited no computer structure. "

That's funny because neither do the other claims besides the window dressing that is plain as day.

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