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


« New York v. Aleynikov -- On Second Thought, New York State's Penal Code (Unlike Federal Criminal Law) Covers Electronic Reproduction of Source Code | Main | In re ZTE (USA) Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

May 14, 2018


Even survivign 101, how is a method claim enforceable for sea ice?

Perhaps in the (rather limited) immediate terrestrial waters of Alaska...

Hey Michael,

That this subject matter was a patent-eligible process should have been a no brainer. That PTAB feels compelled to go through these mental gyrations just proves the nonsensical Mayo/Alice framework is utterly broken. Shame on SCOTUS for foisting this nonsensical framework on us.

Electric Power Group has been distinguished by subsequent decisions.

It no longer has the talisman like power it originally did.


You should tell that to examiners. I'm still getting it cited frequently in a hand-wavy and conclusory fashion.

Mr. Borella,

I do - and have been since several subsequent decisions have come out.

Further, I CONSTANTLY battle examiners over snippets of cases that have found their way into the MPEP (and boilerplate rejections), for which the use IN the boilerplate runs opposite of what the particular case provides. I now have my own "boilerplate" explanations of the actual cases highlighting how the "use" by the examiner runs opposite to the case holding.

Most examiners acquiesce when faced with a superior knowledge of case law that they only know as "form paragraph x345," especially with a call with them and their supervisor.

..and just as this article breaks, we have a seeming RETREAT from the CAFC that emphasizes the negative aspects of "Electric Power Group."

The panel to panel "ping-pong" effect continues....

Thanks, Supreme Court as this mockery is a direct result of your attempted (re)writing of patent law.

Congress, WAKE UP !


I was going to post a snarky comment about the Federal Circuit not knowing the narrow scope of Electric Power Group, but that seems redundant at this point.

Sadly, I must agree with you sir.

The CAFC has lost their mind: the ping pong effect is but a reflection of that and of the larger problem in that the anointed patent court has been brow-beaten into that nonsense by the Supreme Court.

Panel to panel anarchy (as is the absence of any meaningful application of Stare Decisis) directly reflects the lack of care of the Supreme Court.

(as to certain foreign advocates - you know you are - the other echo you should recognize is the echo of "I told you so")

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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