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

« Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceuticals Co. (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

May 06, 2020

Comments

At the point of:

A potentially more workable definition is that a claim is directed to an abstract idea if all of its elements are either non-specific, address a non-technical problem, or known in the art

I push back with a HARD NO.

Known in the art is NOT an eligibility concern.

Let's not embed the problem in ANY proposed solution.

… as well as push back in that the US Sovereign view is NOT a 'technical arts' view.

… as well as ANY sense of 'specificity' will yield the exact same subjective 'specific enough?' issue.

Three strikes on three buzz-wordy phrases.

Rather underwhelming.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2020

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