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.

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

« Broad Files Motion Opposing CVC's Motion to Subpoena Witnesses | Main | CVC Files Substantive Motion No. 3 (for Improper Inventorship) and Broad Opposes »

December 29, 2020

Comments

Re: "The claimed invention relates to object-oriented simulations by way of graphical user interfaces. In the past, these simulations had required at least some programming."
Like many other 101 Alice "abstraction" cases I wonder if such statements about the prior art are made in situations of inadequate prior art searches of record? Graphical user interfaces with different pre-programmed properties go back at least to Xerox PARC "Smalltalk", Apple "Lisa" graphic industrial design software, etc. Cases decided on preliminary 101 motions like this do not provide commentators with valid insights as to whether there was a genuinely meritorious invention involved or not.

Paul Morgan wrote, "Cases decided on preliminary 101 motions like this do not provide commentators with valid insights as to whether there was a genuinely meritorious invention involved or not." Such cases don't provide the courts with such insight either. That's why the statute has 102 and 103. Shame on the CAFC for this decision.

Mr. Morgan,

Your "Cases decided on preliminary 101 motions like this do not provide commentators with valid insights as to whether there was a genuinely meritorious invention involved or not." seems to be aimed at the wrong party - with the wrong 'insights' geared to the wrong question of law ('genuinely meritorious').

The question of law that appears to be very much conflated is prior art/eligibility and NEITHER of which have to do with ANY 'commentator's" view of "merit."

Further, it is NOT 'just any commentator' that we ALL need to be wary of here, but rather, the 'commentator' specific to legislating from the bench BASED ON what the Bench sees as 'meritorious.'

Your comment instead invokes the very thing sought by Congress in the Act of 1952 to ELIMINATE - that of the Court seeking to imbue 'invention' with what THEY thought to be a 'merits' decision (and - explicitly - the notion of Flash of Genius as a signal of 'merit' being expunged).

Those that do not learn from history...

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2021

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