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

« Senators Tillis and Coons Release Statement on Recent Patent Reform Hearings | Main | Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral and Scandalous" Trademarks »

June 26, 2019

Comments

"[T]he Senators state that '[w]e will also consider ideas for reinforcing Section 112 of the Patent Act, which should operate to prevent inventors from claiming all possible solutions to a problem while also serving to protect inventors against those seeking to profit on trivial modifications.' There is much possible mischief in that statement, but these Senators are due the benefit of the doubt... ."

I agree on both counts. The senators are due the benefit of the doubt here, but also there is much possible mischief in that statement. It would have been better if they had, instead, written that "Section 112 of the Patent Act should operate to prevent inventors from claiming *more solutions to a problem than the inventor has actually invented* while also serving to protect inventors... [etc]."

The statement of:

"(although again, to be fair, the Supreme Court undoubtedly did not intend the consequences of its rather Delphic pronouncements on patent subject matter eligibility)."

is certainly debatable.

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