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.

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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Fierce Pharma Reports Big Pharma Earnings Rankings »

April 07, 2019

Comments

Starting with:

"because the patent did not purport to have invented... or the statistical methods used to compare a patient's MPO levels to the control group, the claims recited no further inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the natural law”

Is the court really implying that had the Cleveland Clinic come up with “new math,” that such “new math” ( itself arguably ‘merely a law of nature’), would have sufficed to provide that (undefined) “something more?”

I am:

Hey Don

Cleveland Clinics II is a "clarion call" as to how SCOTUS' unprincipled "making" not "interpreting" law on patent-eligibility is already having severe and adverse affects on the development of medical diagnostics. Even the Federal Circuit can't be persuaded by the new USPTO guidelines on patent-eligibility to ameliorate these effects.

Cleveland Clinics has already announced that it is suspending further efforts on developing medical diagnostics because of this hostile environment to such patents. Who else will do so, ultimately to the public's detriment?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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