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

« Cutsforth Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc. | Main | NRT Technology Corp. v. Everi Payments, Inc. (PTAB 2016) »

February 01, 2016

Comments

The writing of the law that is Alice can be - and should be - seen as void for vagueness.

(That's a translation of the phrase used "lack of certainty" into a bit more impactful legal terminology)

If the Court wants to play the role of scrivener (already a separation of powers issue), then the results of that scrivining STILL must pass muster on other constitutional protections. And while void for vagueness is often presented for criminal matters, the protection does apply in the civil realm when such things as property are affected.

"Nonetheless, when viewed on their faces, the two outcomes further illustrate the lack of predictability that pervades the patent system post-Alice."

Hey Michael,

How very true. Continuing proof that the subjective Alice test is utterly broken.

I agree completely that the Alice test, as currently employed, is an utter crapshoot- which means both inventors and accused infringers are being denied justice.

These defendants are now on the hook for hundreds of thousands or a million-plus dollars in fees before the CAFC invalidates the patent on Alice grounds.

At the very least, as currently operated, a 12(b)6 loss on 101 grounds should get an automatic interlocutory appeal.

This situation is intolerable.

"At the very least, as currently operated, a 12(b)6 loss on 101 grounds should get an automatic interlocutory appeal."

Martin,

There is no way that the courts will grant such "automatic" interlocutory appeals. Grants of interlocutory appeals are rare because it upsets the normal litigation process of having all issues resolved at the trial level before allowing appeal. Changing that normal litigation process would require at least a change in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which has about a "snowball's chance in hell" of happening.

EG, I agree they are rare and should be.

However, when you have a single appeals court with specialized expertise in a single, common question that is not being reliably adjudicated in the lower courts, it's just a massive waste of resources (i.e injustice) to litigate all the way back to the same point.

If we had a working Congress, it would be a single line of legislation. "Subject matter eligibility findings of district courts shall be immediately appealable to the CAFC"

That way, the question is settled and the litigants know where they stand millions of dollars sooner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2020

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