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

« Court Report | Main | IPO Responds to USPTO Call for Case Study Topics »

March 14, 2016

Comments

Good riddance.

As for this: "During that time period, as a patent applicant, you could expect to receive a patent on such arguably "new" business method services, or financial services, as automated by computers/Internet that provided additional functionality."

You can still "expect to receive a patent" and you might actually succeed because the PTO is still struggling with the basics.

Enforcing that patent against a defendant who understands the law is an entirely different question, of course. This kind of junk has always been prone to belly flopping.

"IMX challenged the CBM as being unconstitutional, and argued that issued patents are no longer under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and may be set aside, annulled, or corrected only by the courts of the United States, not by the USPTO or PTAB. IMX argued that post-grant proceedings to invalidate patents deprive patent owners of due process and invade the province of Article III courts."

Smells like desperation. More accurately, it smells like desperation wrapped in a used gym sock and dipped in fish sauce.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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