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

« Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | How Bats Are Different »

July 22, 2020

Comments

Well-done, Michael.

As "a sarcastic parody" of a 101 rejection it's not that great, since a detailed novel cryptography system has even been used by patent law experts as an example of a technology NOT likely to be held invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 if properly claimed.

Paul,

I am not disagreeing with you that a detailed novel cryptography system should be valid under 101. But is that what the RSA patent claimed?

If the RSA patent was evaluated under today's reductionist interpretation of Alice by the Federal Circuit, it would almost certainly be held ineligible. This would happen in spite of it being one of the most innovative and practical software inventions of the last 50 years.

Mike

Mr. Morgan,

Shall we ask the Cleveland Clinic about those "examples?"

As you may recall, they fashioned continuation claim DIRECTLY on a USPTO example for eligible under 35 USC §101, only to lose at court.

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