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

« Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) | Main | Qiagen North America Holdings Inc. v. Handylab, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) »

November 10, 2021

Comments

I like at least some parts of the subject matter eligibility proposal, though. At least with regard to life sciences/diagnostics, the present case law is rather - let's say - interesting - at least for a European.

As noted in several other places, one question worth being answered is why is this NOT a bipartisan effort?

If Democrats got behind it, the Republicans would be obliged to oppose it.
Seems to me that, as part of this back-to-the-good-old-days project, the US would have to bail out of some treaty obligations.

Mr. Demers,

I do not see what "bail out of some treaty obligations" would be impugned.

Quite in fact, the current ALLOWANCE of the the Court's re-written patent laws can be said to violate current treaties (clearly the Supreme Court's muckery involves "technology" [no matter how defined] that the TRIPS treaty provides as a baseline to be protected.

As I read your comment (and I could be in error), you appear to think that entering into the legislation somehow causes a Treaty issue. Would love to hear more about that.

“But like a belief in Santa Claus, passage of this bill is a pleasant… fantasy.”

The first iteration of the AIA was introduced in 2005 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). It took years of patient revision and coalition building for Smith eventually to get the bill passed in 2011. In other words, when one speaks of a bill being unlikely to pass, it is important to qualify over what time horizon one means. If Rep. Massie scales back his ambitions and sticks with this effort, it is not crazy to suppose that he will eventually achieve some of his aims, just as Rep. Smith did with enough patience and willingness to compromise.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

December 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