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
Juristant #4 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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« A Solution in Search of a Problem | Main | 2019 Business Methods Partnership Meeting »

March 27, 2019

Comments

Symantic was a "pong," but we now have had two "pings" in a row with this case (SRI) and the PTAB "informational" Ex parte Smith.

Wrecking the rhythm...

Hey Skeptical,

We just got another "pong." See ChargePoint Inc. v. Semaconnect Inc. issued by the Federal Circuit today (opinion by Prost, joined by Reyna Taranto). In applying the nonsensical and broken Mayo/Alice framework, patent-eligibility appears to hinge on the luck of the Federal Circuit panel drawn. Time to get out the Ouija Board again.

EG,

Perhaps the lesson is that ANY innovation related to "electric grids" need not apply for patents.

Like Electric Power Group, the applicant in the ChargePoint case was attempting to patent innovation involved with electric grids.

(which may mean that the curtailing of Electric Power Group's "Just say no" effects on computing systems in general may still be in effect)

By the way, with just a very quick read, the ChargePoint decision appears to be creating more Common Law law writing as pertains to "directed to" and appears to add some real difficulties in regards to "patent profanity" by now "Gisting" from the specification [in addition to "Gisting" from the claims).

Additionally, breadth is now being attacked (as if having broad claims is not allowed under the law). The CONFLATION of patent law is being advanced with this mess of a decision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2019

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