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

« In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC Federal Circuit Argument -- The Patent Office Asks to Have Its Cake and Eat It Too | Main | USPTO Provides Update on Status of Revised Myriad-Mayo Guidance »

November 11, 2014

Comments

"This makes sense, because inventive concept is a patent feature even more standardless than undue preemption."

Well said!

"The case is now in the hands of the Federal Circuit panel, with a decision expected in the next few months."

Based on the tone and tenor of the oral argument, may God help us.

Ariosa is correct, in that it repeats the Supreme Court's analysis correctly. But of course, the Supremes have muddled the law, conflated 101 with 102/103 issues, and chops claims up for analysis, rather than considering the claim as a whole.

As to the Invitae argument that getting rid of gene and diagnostic patents will not result in data suppression, it ALREADY has since Myriad began keeping their variants of unknown significance as a trade secret for several years now. Without patent protection, other companies will be forced to do the same thing, though of course academics will continue to publish.

Even if the Federal Circuit sorts this mess out, the chances are good that the Supremes will just take the case and overrule them again.

Some 80 countries already prohibit patents on drugs, medical treatments and diagnostics, and in spite of the US position on the Trans Pacific Partnership (see QQE.1(3) at https://wikileaks.org/tpp), we are heading that way by judicial intervention.

Well, TVALOIR, I'm not so sure Ariosa gets it right. If you click on the link to my earlier post you will see a fuller explication of my thoughts, but I do think there is a way to distinguish this case from Ariosa.

Thanks for the comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 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