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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

November 25, 2018

Comments

In a vacuum, this might contain some nice tidbits.

In the Alice-driven world? Not so much.

I've had good experiences avoiding and overcoming Alice issues following this approach.

Thanks Mike. I do not doubt your personal reflections, but would add (and link to this story as somewhat of a confirmation: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/28/artificial-intelligence-technologies-facing-heavy-scrutiny-uspto/ ), that for every one of your "successes," four others likely fail with the same approach.

The link does point out that an additional case after Alice (Electric Power Group) is having a highly negative effect.

Interesting and timely article. I certainly could poke holes in the analysis (such as, looking just at 101 rejections for AI applications is misleading when the same trend likely applies to software patents as a whole). But it is hard to draw conclusions from USPTO data period, so I applaud the efforts. Nonetheless, I don't think that the situation is as dire as it would seem, and I suspect that if one were to look at the claims of these applications, one would see that that most of the applications being rejected have broad and vague language.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

December 2018

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