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

« Court Report | Main | Court Report -- Part II »

May 18, 2016

Comments

I *should* say "Holy $%^&!" in surprise at the idiocy of this decision, but we've seen enough of these to know that with this 101 stuff it's monkey see, monkey do. So if SCOTUS says something stupid, it's no surprise that the ITC follows suit.

That doesn't stop me from wanting to grab this person by the lapels and shout at them, Hey, Dee Lord: IT'S A FRIGGIN' DEVICE. If I can touch it, it's not abstract. It may lack novelty, it may be obvious, but IT'S A FRIGGIN' DEVICE and eligible under 101.

Wait for people to realize that the breadth of "organizing people's activity" includes making them well by giving them chemicals and such....

Hey Joe,

Yet another "poster child" of why the nonsensical Alice test is utterly broken. What was claimed was machine, one of the patent-eligible categories in 35 USC 101. Whether this claimed machine was novel and unobviousness I can't opine. But it was most definitely patent-eligible by any rationale definition.

As intimated by the S. Ct. (which is overall just missing the point with respect to abstract ideas, products of nature etc.). Perhaps patent attorneys have gotten too clever. If it is a machine/apparatus than why call it a system (system smacks of abstract ideas - black box one black box two; or database one database two)? Do people call watches systems for telling time (I hope not but I suppose some supposedly clever patent attorney has)?

hatingAliceMayoetc,

Check yourself - you are falling into the Supreme Court trap of "blame the scriviner."

Your presumption (ASSumption?) that a "system smacks of abstract ideas" is not valid. Even your watch as a system example belies that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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