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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Hyper Search LLC v. Facebook Inc. (D. Del. 2018) »

May 19, 2019

Comments

Even though the Examiner allowed the '755 Patent despite four separate § 101 rejections, the Court still found that the USPTO's decision to grant the patent does not relieve the patent holder from making an independent evaluation of the strength of the patent prior to suing. The Court stated that the "issuance of a patent cannot and should not be a license to sue with abandon." The Court further noted that patent examiners are non-lawyers, and an Examiner's opinion on the legal question of patent eligibility does not relieve a patent attorney from his or her obligation to make an independent assessment based on an evaluation of the relevant law.

Someone please remind Judge Andrews that the PERTINENT Rule of Law (regardless of whether or not an examiner is an attorney) is set by Congress at:


35 U.S.C. 282 (a) IN GENERAL.—A patent shall be presumed valid.

This is a "SHALL" which overrides the feelings of the Judge.

"I believe I am a reasonable patent attorney with an understanding of § 101 law... ."

Perhaps this just goes without saying, but you are leagues ahead of me if you really do understand §101 law. I like to think of myself as also being a "reasonable patent attorney," but it has been years since the judicial outworkings of §101 have made any sense to me.

The point expressed by Mr. DeLassus may be more stridently put as the Court (and courts, and the Patent Office up to the point of the new “Off Ramps” protocol) were “in the business” of RE-writing 35 USC 101 by way of Common Law evolution, but in doing so had created such a mish-mash of ping-pong decisions that the state of the law is a veritable Gordian Knot, and what any (all) additional court decisions are doing is merely adding more rope to that knotted ball.

It is past time to apply some Scissors to that Knot.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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