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.

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

« What Are the IP Provisions of the TPP? | Main | Ex parte Jung (PTAB 2015) »

November 10, 2015

Comments

Hey Michael,

With all due respect, this 101 invalidity ruling by the N.D. Ohio in MacroPoint is utterly absurd. What is being claimed is a electronic system for tracking freight on a truck. How in the world is that "abstract"? Just proves again that the nonsensical Alice test is completely broken.

(Sadly), this all sounds in the "I told you so" that I offered previously to Paul Cole.

Bottom line here is that the judicial branch will not let any other branch get in the way of the judicial branch EFFECTIVELY writing statutory patent law.

There is but one path forward for this.

One.

But is Congress up to the task?

Well, I remain...

The moment a claim can be characterized as "correlating" anything, it is dead.

Eric,

Agreed, I have mostly given up on trying to make actual sense of Alice. Instead I try to make it make sense by ignoring the fact that many "abstract" inventions require computer hardware.

In cases like this one, the court decides whether the claims without computer implementation are directed to something that could have been done by people with existing technology. Then the computer implementation is considered, and if it is just a generic computer performing the claimed steps, that's the end of the claim.

It is just another legal fiction that computer implementation is abstract.

Mike

Mike,

Your statement of " Instead I try to make it make sense by ignoring the fact that many "abstract" inventions require computer hardware." - will not help you.

Please remember that in that very Alice case, that both sides agreed that claims met the statutory category aspect of the hard goods of "hardware," and such removed that issue from the Court's purview (it was not at the case or controversy that such was met).

Those types of things - not at issue before the Court - are merely "Gisted" away by the Court as if those claim elements (or the words of Congress that would provide merit to those claim elements) did not exist.

SRG (AKA MM, AKA Malcolm Mooney),
Your characterization here begs too much. It is equivalent to saying that the mere presence in a claim of something that can be attributed to a mental step damms the entire claim, no matter what.

That is not only patently not correct, it is not even close to what the Mental Steps Doctrine itself provides.

Instead, any veracity in your statement is more - and merely - a reflection that "the scoreboard is broken" (as that adage goes).

You don't get "points" by "cheering on" a broken scoreboard when the real issue at hand is the fact that the scoreboard is broken and needs to be fixed/replaced.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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