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


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | USPTO Issues Memorandum on Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals »

July 08, 2018


Hey Kevin,

HR 6264 is a good starting point to see if we can get Congress to correct any of the mess created by both the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) and especially by SCOTUS' nonsensical and broken Mayo/Alice framework. Section 7 (patent-eligibility) needs to be at the top of the list-until this mess created by SCOTUS is fixed, we'll have nothing but chaos in the U.S. patent system.

I also don't want to hear that HR 6264 is DOA. We need to try to do something legislatively to fix this mess created by the AIA and SCOTUS. Every little bit that can accomplished in getting all or portions of HR 6264 passed will help. Even passage of Section 7 or something like it only would do wonders.

It is good to hear that Representatives Massie and Kaptur are pushing for patent reform. Inventors and the invention innovator companies need them. US patenting process needs to become more balanced and fair. A return to pre-2011 rules and statutes seems right. Before 2011 the US patent system had been fair and supported its long standing goals. Right now it is too easy to kill a patent or block invention patenting outright. While I endorse their bill HR 6264 in general based on its detailing here by Kevin Noonan, I would add that "mental acts" should mean "mental biological acts". In this way I think that 35 USC 101 would not by default block computer software dependent and related patenting. Then invention patentability would more so depend upon its satisfaction of Sections 102, 103, and 112.

I think "wet dream" is a more accurate characterization than "Christmas in July".

Karl: I think the phrase “or exists solely in a human mind” is intended to address your concerns.

But I agree with your thought.


While I read the Constitution to refer to the inventor rather than the first to file when it states "securing … to inventors the exclusive right" (not that I'm a member of the select group of nine whose opinions matter), a portion of the proposed legislation rests at the completely other end of the seesaw from the AIA, and would just as likely adversely affect the balance. Making the US patent system failsafe for all patents really doesn't seem to be the right fix.

Watch out for those analogies, remember that Crazy Eddie was jailed!

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