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


« WIPO Launches Coordinated Examination before Top Five Patent Offices | Main | Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2018) »

July 11, 2018


Of course, Judge Ilston was the district court judge who decided Ariosa. Perhaps she is beginning to see the error of her judicial ways (whether she was affirmed or not; if you doubt it read her decision)


This decision is not “on the merits,” but rather, more that the “merits” annoy be ascertained on the facts that are evident (so far)...

While it does not appear that Berkheimer was cited (I have not read the case), it does appear that the factual predicates underlying the legal notions of 101 are not being merely “assumed.”

Which reminds me: the factual predicates necessary for the Office to establish “conventional” are HIGHER than merely known (novel) or “known-plus” (obvious). “Conventional” carries within its meaning “widespread and common use.”

And it is not the piece parts that require such evidence - it is the ordered combination. After all, ALL (any) “hard goods” types of inventions NECESSARILY are comprised of piece parts that of themselves satisfy the “conventional” criteria (IF applied at the piece part level).

Hey Don,

The absurdity of this motion to dismiss is beyond the pale, and should have been sanctioned as frivolous. But unfortunately, that's the fairy tale patent world we currently live in in view of the nonsensical and broken Mayo/Alice framework that the Royal Nine have foisted on us.

pardon the autocorrect...

"more that the "merits" annoy"

should read

"more that the "merits" may not yet"

In this method patent's claims at issue, DNA amplification is used to identify specific DNA regions. This method is akin to increasing signal to noise by boasting the signal. It should not matter that the DNA came from an animal. The method claim is not claiming a product of nature. This is more a story about botched legal thinking by a scientifically-illiterate Judge Susan Illston.

Methods of patenting based on concentrating a naturally occurring substance such as wood by removing the bark never stopped anyone from patenting wooden furniture.

Lawyers involved in any IP decisions should be required to have a scientific training in the specific area they are preaching law. They need to be educated in technology so they do not waste time and money of others by their ignorance.

These Judges need to get training in modern technologies before being allowed "to drive" the IP law impacting such technologies. Illston is causing accidents that harm business. Her mis-thinking is not what she was hired to do and its not an acceptable comedy that she is wreckless.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 31