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


« Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2018) | Main | Ex parte Hakkani-Tur (PTAB 2018) »

May 22, 2018


"In applying the Alice two-step framework to the claims at issue, the District Court "[r]eview[ed] Claim one (1) individually, and then as an ordered combination with Claims two (2) or three (3),..."

That's not how the framework is laid out - each claim on its own is to have the framework applied, and NOT claims themselves "interwoven" like this.

Was this some "shortcut" in legal thinking?

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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 30