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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« The CRISPR Chronicles -- Broad Institute Wins One and Loses One | Main | Amicus Briefs Filed in Mohawk Tribe's Motion to Dismiss IPRs »

January 25, 2018

Comments

"A recent trend in § 101 jurisprudence is the increasing importance of process over substance. If a Federal Circuit panel reviews claims after they were construed by the district court, refuses to summarize the claimed invention at a high level in part one of the Alice inquiry, and considers the teachings of improvements set forth in the specification in parts one or two of this inquiry, it is much more likely that the Court will find the claims in question to be eligible."

That sounds in the opposite - when substance is actually engaged, the process appears rational. It is when NO substance is engaged (and "Gisting" is prevalant), THAT is when you have "process over substance."

Note that transformative improved functionality is apparent from the straightforward wording of the claim, which prompted the Court to enquire deeper and reach the favourable result that it did.

The legal inconsistency referred to in the article may be improved by more thoughtful and detailed claim drafting, as here.

"Intra-circuit split" is a charitable phrasing. Philosophical chasm is more like it.

With millions of dollars in litigation hanging on utterly random District Court judge draws, the current situation is intolerable. Congress or the Supreme Court are totally abdicating their responsibilities to equity and justice on this topic.

Michael,

I commend you on your excellent insights regarding the current intra-circuit split - the tension between Amdocs and Two-Way Media is palpable: When should the claims be construed – before consideration of 101 issues or after? To what extent should the claims, for purposes of assessing patent eligibility, be considered in view of the specification.. Maybe the big takeaway here is that if the Federal Circuit could develop a consistent process for assessing patent eligibility in a way that makes sense to the patent bar, then the heightened level of kvetching about 101 jurisprudence (including calls for legislative clarification of 101) would effectively cease.

Mr. Snyder's comment of "Philosophical chasm" is absolutely correct.

However - this is directly BECAUSE of the meddling of the Supreme Court and that body's actions BEYOND their responsibility.

Somehow calling for MORE of what started the problem (in order to reach any sense of "equity") guarantees only more of the same mess.

There is a quote, I believe attributed to Einstein, that fits here...

@ Gary Cohen

As explained in a number of briefs that I have written, it is a matter of taking into account the "all elements" rule that applies to sections 102 and 103 into 101. Although there is room for interpretation of the claim, that is an inescapable requirement of patent law.

We then have the correct division of the Federal Circuit into correctly informed lawyers and ill-informed lawyers.

How can you make a decision about a claim when you do not truly understand what it means?

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.)

February 2018

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