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

« LG Electronics v. Immervision, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) | Main | ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022) »

July 19, 2022

Comments

It would be interesting to learn, in relation to each of the representative claims in issue, how the positive requirements of the claimed methods satisfy the "process" requirement of section 101.

This CareDx opinion is far worse than the prior bad diagnostics decisions:

• The panel’s opinion distressingly ignores – totally -- the patent's discussion of a decade of prior art failures that could not effectively measure the natural correlation and also ignores the prior art’s express statements that it was “impractical” to try to do so.

• If it were so conventional to measure the long known correlation in the patented fashion, how come according to the patent so many workers over so many years tried and failed to do so concluding it was “impractical.”

If I were CareDx, I would have argued (and maybe they did) that cell-free DNA from a transplanted organ does not occur in nature: organ transplants are not a natural phenomenon.

Sean Brennan,

Business methods are not a natural phenomenon.

The "occur in nature" aspect has descended to being merely the 'place' of the command of 'just apply it' occurs, and has become untethered to its original mode of "nature has the exact claimed item - as a whole - already extant.

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.)

September 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