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

« Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) »

June 27, 2016

Comments

As Roger Meyers Jr. said, "The screwballs have spoken."

If I had any doubts before, I have none now: nothing is going to change until a member of SCOTUS or one their families dies from a disease for which no treatment was commercialized due to lack of IP protection.

Any bets on which country is going to file the complaint at the WTO for lack of adequate patent protection in the USA?

"[N]othing is going to change until a member of SCOTUS or one their families dies from a disease for which no treatment was commercialized due to lack of IP protection."

I doubt that even this sort of occurrence would turn the tide on the recent perversion of §101. Really, there are only two things that can turn the tide: (1) a significant change in the composition of the court (don't hold you breath on this one, because no president is going to choose, e.g., Justice Breyer's replacement on the basis of the potential successor's views on IP law); or (2) statutory amendment.

One can imagine all sorts of scenarios that lead to #2, but my favorite is where some other country hauls us in front of the WTO for failure of compliance with TRIPS. Here's hoping your last sentence is prophetic.

Looks like the biotech industry is going to have to buy (lobby) their patent rights back from Congress that were stolen by the judiciary. I'm honestly heartbroken that SCOTUS denied this petition.

Given the effort that many people have put into this appeal and the quality of the many briefs filed, the outcome can only be described as a devastating disappointment.

The opportunity for useful clarification of the law has been lost, and the resulting setback may take years, if not decades, to reverse.

The sad, but nevertheless underlying, fact is that Sequenom is WRONG, both factually and more importantly from a legal standpoint. That will be very difficult for us all to live with. It has confirmed a set of legal rulings which are WRONG, inadequately reasoned and PROFOUNDLY UNHELPFUL AND DAMAGING. Not an easy situation for any of us to live with.

"[T]he resulting setback may take years, if not decades, to reverse."

I would bet on the "decades" end of that spread. It is hard to imagine a better vehicle than Ariosa with which the SCotUS could have reigned in the recent excesses of §101 jurisprudence. I had hoped that Ariosa would be to Mayo as Diehr was to Flook. The fact that they were not willing to take Ariosa, however, tells me that they do not want a course correction, so one cannot be expected until such time as the composition of the court has changed significantly. That will take a lot of time.

Mr. Cole,

With sadness and not gloating: "I told you so."

Any legislative effort will only be successful if combined with the jurisdiction stripping of this non-original jurisdiction type of case (and with a new lower Article III court as well).

Will Congress be able to shut out the (Citizens United) voices and stop stuffing their pockets with what those voices provide to actually take this admittedly ambitious step?

Again, sadly, I remain...

@ Skeptical

On reflection there is a further cause of disappointment.

There was room for believing that the problem was inexperienced judges given briefs written at a high level but not concentrating on essentials, so that basics might have slipped through the cracks. But if you take the petition and the amicus briefs as a collective effort, that cannot be said in the present petition and the critical arguments were presented in authoritative detail. You have only to look at the names on many of the amicus briefs to realize the rare assembly of skill and knowledge with which the decision-making process was supported.

In these circumstances, the outcome is almost impossible to understand and reflects no credit on US jurisprudence. Indeed, Skeptical you told me so. My problem was in having more confidence in the rational decision-making capacity of US judges than proved to be the case.

"In these circumstances, the outcome is almost impossible to understand and reflects no credit on US jurisprudence."

I agree 100%. Judge Linn concurred with the panel opinion, but wrote separately to say that Mayo is both over-reaching and unworkable in actual practice. Then Judge Lourie (joined by Judge Moore) wrote a concurrence to the denial of en banc review to make the same point. Even Judge Dyk, who is a real fan of Mayo, admitted that the text of Mayo is probably an over-reach and will need to be revisited some day (although he did not want Sequenom's case to be that occasion for revisiting).

In other words, let's set aside for a moment the combined eminence of the various amici supporting this cert petition. Just looking at the *federal judges* urging the SCotUS to take this case, I cannot imagine a more clear statement that a case deserves cert.

If the SCotUS cannot see clearly the importance of these issues in this case, then there really is no hope for the courts to correct their own mistakes. Only Congress can save the patent system at this point. Unfortunately, it will likely be a while before they take notice.

I don't understand why a concerted effort by the biotech industry couldn't get Congress to amend section 101.

"In other words, let's set aside for a moment the combined eminence of the various amici supporting this cert petition. Just looking at the *federal judges* urging the SCotUS to take this case, I cannot imagine a more clear statement that a case deserves cert."

There is another way, shown to us by Judge Newman in BASCOM: do the 102, 103 and 112 analysis as such, without conducting a separate 101, while SAYING that your result amounts to a conclusion under 101 as well. That is, side-step Alice, Myriad and Mayo while talking as if you're following the SCOTUS line on this. That's what I would have expected the CAFC to do in the not-so-distant past. But now, Lourie, Linn and the rest don't have Judge Newman's spine.

My impression is that SCOTUS put this case into its "Too Difficult" basket. Of course, the justices would never admit to such a thing. Instead, they trot out the usual "The court does not shrink from...." mantra. Sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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