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

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

« United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023) | Main | Federal Circuit Special Committee Recommends One-Year Suspension of Judge Newman »

August 01, 2023

Comments

Surely Judge Stark would be recused though right?

Finally, a moment of clarity. For now.

One would think that if Judge Stark ended up on the panel, he would recluse himself.

This is a happy bit of news, even if it could all change in time. A small glimmer of sanity.

Dear Mr. Michael Borella,
Internet sites teach that Judge Leonard Stark has an economics college degree,a master's degree in history, has a politics PhD degree, and a law school degree.
Thus, Judge Stark lacks formal education in science yet opined on a science invention. If he is savvy he will excuse himself from any appeal board to protect his career.
Wikipedia re natural frequency, teaches "Free vibrations of an elastic body are called natural vibrations and occur at a frequency called the natural frequency. Natural vibrations are different from forced vibrations which happen at the frequency of an applied force (forced frequency). If the forced frequency is equal to the natural frequency, the vibrations' amplitude increases manyfold. This phenomenon is known as resonance."
The patented process concerned making a machine using a synthetic material component which would operate near its natural frequency to absorb a machine operation causing resonance.
It is not surprising that many authorities found the patented process to be valid under Section 101 and not a product of nature. Why the legal system failed for 5 years in this case shows the legal system is Section 101 reckless and broken at this point.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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