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

« News from Abroad: Pravastatin Sodium Case, Japan Product-by-Process Claiming Practice: Supreme Court Overrules the Grand Panel of the IP High Court | Main | CLE on Patent Eligibility, Prior Art and Obviousness »

June 12, 2015

Comments

Michael,

Not surprised by this result given how the broken Alice test provides no objective standard for determining patent-eligibility based on factual evidence that is in the record. You're also being too kind to Judge Mayer: he should frankly be urged to step down and hear no more patent cases.

Eric,

If Mayer and Lourie are on a 101 panel, the outcome is highly predictable. Not so for the other judges.

Mike,

My broken (analog) clock is highly predictable.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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