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

« New CRISPR Interference: The Details | Main | The STRONGER Patents Act of 2019: Weakening Post-Grant Proceedings »

July 09, 2019

Comments

Hey Don,

Now that all 12 Federal Circuit judges have said such diagnostic methods should be eligible under 101 but for the nonsensical Mayo decision, SCOTUS needs to take the eventual petition for cert and fix the mess that they've created. That SCOTUS failed to do so in the earlier Sequenom case is utterly irresponsible on their part.

What
A
Mess.

The last time that I saw such a discordant cacophony from the ensembled CAFC was the en banc "decision" in the Alice case.

Of course, that case then went up to the Supreme Court, which promptly made matters worse.

"...the Supreme Court has effectively told us in Mayo that correlations between the presence of a biological material and a disease are laws of nature"
I didn't know the Supreme Court were scientific experts - quite a multi-talented bunch!

It gets even better, Sean. Since ALL medication utility merely comes from the body’s response to whatever it is that has been given to it, the effective utility is thus nullified from having any patentable weight under 35 USC 101 (after all, all that is happening is the body is only following “laws of nature” in creating any metabolite (or any metabolic action). ;-p

Her colleagues still don't get it: when Judge Newman dissents, it means the majority got it wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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