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


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023) »

April 16, 2023


Pardon the application of jargon, but Copyright appears to present an easier call in comparison to patents.

By this, I note that Copyright is not encumbered by the necessity of passing a type of 103 test — that is, Copyright is only concerning itself with an authorship question.

Patent law is now (even if no one is discussing it yet) at a point to which the non-human legal fiction of a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art presents a bar to proper grant of patents, and this bar represents a State of the Art that ever more so will include non-human inventions.

This problem is only exacerbated with the ‘trend’ of treating 103 art as mere aggregates of 102 art (witness the decline of “motivation to combine” to merely being “motivation”).

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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