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

« Supreme Court Denies Cert in American Axle | Main | The Compelling Implications of Using a Blockchain to Record and Verify Patent Assignments »

June 30, 2022

Comments

"The case was possibly the best opportunity yet to clarify what was meant by the remarkably vague two-part test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l."

No way. Ariosa v. Sequenom was the best vehicle yet by which the Court could have done a course-correction. The fact that the Court passed on Sequenom made me skeptical that they would take American Axle.

The bottom line is that they have had many, *many* good opportunities by now to fix the mess that they made, but they have passed on all of them. The Court (wrongly) does not regard §101 as presently broken, and thus they (wrongly) do not perceive a need to fix it.

For better or worse, any solution that will arrive in the next century will come from the Congress. The Court *likes* the current status quo, and has no desire to change it.

"Fixing Alice has proven remarkably difficult despite its obvious problems. Congress tried three years ago and gave up."

They "gave up" because the community of patent professionals stopped them. *We* sabotaged the §101 fix because it came packaged with a §112 reform. Perhaps some day we will grow up and learn that half a loaf is better than nothing. So long as we take the my-way-or-the-highway approach to statutory fixes, however, we are doomed to stall out in the status quo.

I would counter Mr. DeLassus's assertion in that the "because it came packaged with a §112 reform." was not somehow a legitimate rejection.

It has been well pointed out that the "packaged with a §112 reform" was nothing more than a disastrous poison pill - a trojan horse that would have been far worse than even the current §101 debacle.

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.)

August 2022

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