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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« President Obama Signs Defend Trade Secrets Act | Main | Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance -- Example on Diagnosing and Treating Julitis »

May 12, 2016


Hey Michael,

Yes, Enfish is the "unicorn" to add to DDR Holdings, and a step in the right direction of rendering some sanity out of the insanity called the Mayo/Alice framework.


No such unicorn - the framework is still there and there will still be more "whatevers" that are to be generated based on the whims of judges (and Justices) based solely on any day's particular's desired ends.

That one falls on the side f the fence of pro-patenting software is rather meaningless when looking at the law, at what the judges (and Justices) are supposed to be doing with this law (applying, not mashing), and for any ability to apply the law in a forward looking manner (yes, read this as void for vagueness).

When the answer to "What does the law mean?" is: well that depends on which judge (or Justices) hear your case, we have well landed back in history to the time of "the only valid patent is one that has not yet appeared before us."

And Congress still slumbers on, the apparent obliviousness is staggering. Even worse, we have a nearly unanimous Congress bolstering the path of Trade Secrets while the reward for sharing domain is trampled with pro-trespasser leanings.

Maybe the citizens (the non-juristic ones) can unite and wake up Congress...?

Alas, of that, I remain...

Subtly changed the nature of the Alice step? More like sidestepped the sole clear directions of the Alice test. This should be a expected to go higher.

This decision didn't side-step anything. The Alice test is only two pronged when the first prong is not satisfied. When the first prong is satisfied, it' a one-prong test. It always has been. The only thing new here is a correct application of the original test.

"Now, one can short-circuit the full analysis if the claimed invention is clearly not abstract"

You always could do that.

"and doing so may involve determining whether the invention improves the operation of a computer or technological process."

Yeah that part is probably illegal.

Can you explain why you think that "that part" is probably illegal, 6?

You appear to be using some sort of foregone conclusion or bias inherent in the words "operation of a computer or technological process," and seem to be having a knee-jerk reaction unrelated to the underlying law itself.

Whether you recognize this in your rather presumptive statement, well, I remain....

"Can you explain why you think that "that part" is probably illegal, 6?"

It's "illegal" because the "improves the operation of a computer" consideration happens at step 2B of the test—not 2A.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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