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


« In Defense of the Federal Circuit: A Response to Judge Wood | Main | Preliminary Injunction in Myriad v. Ambry and Gene-by Gene: Myriad Replies »

October 08, 2013


Good for Patent Docs for covering this neutrally. There are some thoughtful blogs at http://www.stirrup-queens.com/2013/10/ethical-dilemma-23andmes-patent-and-genetic-selection/ and http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2013/10/07/a-new-patent-for-23andme-creates-controversy/

Claim 11 and claim 21 are pretty clear examples of ineligible junk.

the company had "applied [for the patent] more than five years ago,"

Yes, that's quite obvious!

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