It Is Time for Federal Circuit Judges of Good Conscience to Call Out Their Colleagues

“With no avenue to pursue anticipation or obviousness because the factual record forbids such challenges, what is left to a defendant? Easy answer: claim patent ineligibility under Section 101 and rely on the Federal Circuit ability to deny the time of day using the meaningless standards of ‘abstract’ and ‘inventive concept.’”

https://depositphotos.com/7784663/stock-photo-time-to-change-concept-clock.htmlRecently, IPWatchdog published an excellent article by Wen Xie outlining the legal inconsistencies of the Chamberlain v. Techtronic Industries opinion, penned by Judge Chen. Unfortunately, describing the latest inconsistencies in the garbage pile of contradictions that is the Federal Circuit’s Alice/Mayo doctrine provides no surprise to anyone. The Alice/Mayo decisions issued by the CAFC are self-contradictory and cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, and at least a dozen Supreme Court cases. Indeed, the only surprises from the Federal Circuit these days come in the form of the odd holding for patent eligibility.

The Big Lie

However, Wen Xie’s article did cause me to realize that I’d overlooked Judge Chen’s distortions of fact. “Distortions,” however, is too mild a term for the outrageous misrepresentations made in Chamberlain. While these misrepresentations of fact are not totally apparent on the face of the decision, the first clue comes in the very first page of the step one analysis, where Judge Chen falsely asserts:

“The only described difference [according to Chamberlain’s patent specification] between the prior art movable barrier operator systems and the claimed movable barrier operator system is that the status information about the system is communicated wirelessly, in order to overcome certain undesirable disadvantages of systems using physical signal paths—additional cost, exposed wiring, and in-creased installation time” (emphasis added).

Really? As if the only difference between Chamberlain’s garage door opener and the entire prior art universe of garage door openers is that Chamberlain used *gasp* a wireless means of communication, and this is admitted by the patentee? What incompetent patent attorney drafted such an admission? The answer is no one drafted such nonsense, which Judge Chen falsely asserts can be found in col. 1, l. 49 – col. 2, l. 16, col. 3, ll. 16–26, of U.S. Patent 7,224,275. The ‘275 patent was, by all appearances, competently drafted, and no such silly admissions were made. The casual reader can trust Judge Chen or the actual language in the ‘275 Patent, but trust one or the other they should.

It’s as if Judge Chen wants us to believe that the idea of using a wireless transmitter with a garage door opener was never considered prior to the 2003 filing date of the ‘275 Patent, or that substituting a wireless for a wired transmission path for garage door openers would not be obvious. Further, the Menard Patent Application, which was cited against the ‘275 Patent in an obviousness-based invalidity challenge by the Defendant, makes over one-hundred mentions of “wireless” communications.

The obviousness challenge to the ‘275 Patent failed for lack of substantial evidence regarding assertions that the prior art references taught the claimed signal format limitations, and because there was substantial evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness. See, e.g., Case: 1:16-cv-06097 Document #:740 (filed 05/23/18), pp. 17-21 and 36-37. “Because, according to Dr. Rhyne’s testimony, this combination does not teach the limitations of the ‘275 patent claims, the jury heard substantial evidence supporting a finding of nonobviousness.” Id. at p. 20. “Dr. Rhyne testified regarding secondary considerations of nonobviousness which the jury may, and apparently did, choose to credit.” Id. at p. 36.

The particular limitations missing from the prior art had nothing to do with the use of wireless technology. Indeed, the record is clear that the claimed data format is the distinguishing hallmark of the ‘275 Patent. Id. at p. 20. The defendant did not challenge this fact upon appeal, but merely declared that the particular claimed data format is somehow “irrelevant.” See, blue brief, p. 36; reply brief at p. 1.

With no avenue to pursue anticipation or obviousness because the factual record forbids such challenges, what is left to a defendant? Easy answer: claim patent ineligibility under Section 101 and rely on the Federal Circuit’s ability to deny the time of day using the meaningless standards of “abstract” and “inventive concept.” However, it’s hard to declare that something is “routine” and “conventional” when the factual record says the complete opposite. Hence, the big lie that the only described difference between the prior art and the claimed system is wireless communication.

The Big Question

The bigger question upon en banc rehearing, if it is granted, will be: will the whole Federal Circuit give a pass to Judge Chen’s outrageous misrepresentations, or will the Federal Circuit cowboy up, get tough on their fellow judges, and hope to regain some measure of integrity after the last five years of bleak nonsense?

My best guess is “no” given my first-hand experience in In re Villena. I was highly disappointed that not a single fellow judge called out the dishonesty of Judges Stoll, Hughes, and Prost. Indeed, as I previously penned regarding the Federal Circuit’s lack of veracity: “The Federal Circuit is shamelessly willing to misrepresent the evidentiary record when addressing Alice/Mayo.” The Chamberlain decision validates my position.

On the other hand, one prominent judicial figure, Judge Kimberly Moore, did recently call out her fellow judges for the disregard of an actual factual record in favor of a manufactured factual record. “I am deeply troubled by the majority’s disregard for the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, its fact finding on appeal and its repeated misrepresentation of the record, in each instance to the patentee’s detriment; all when we are to be applying the summary judgment standard no less” (emphasis added). American Axle v. Neapco, Appeal No. 2018-1763, diss.op. @ p. 5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2019).  Judge Moore further opined: “The majority finds that U.S. Patent No. 3,075,406, never introduced as evidence in this case or cited by either party, which discloses a rigid cylindrical metal bar with two circular ends resembling a metal dumbbell—is a liner. . . . This is a fact question, nobody argued it, and reasonable minds could disagree over whether a dumbbell is a liner.” Id. @ p. 8.

Granted Judges Dyk and Taranto proved themselves as completely unfamiliar with the concepts of relying on the actual evidentiary record during appeal and Constitutional due process without your help, but thank you Judge Moore for standing up to your fellow judges in this one instance. Now, could you and a handful of other judges stand up to Judge Chen’s misrepresentations upon rehearing in the Chamberlain case?

A Call for Amici

File an amicus curiae on behalf of any party you wish in the Chamberlain case, so long as you demand the Federal Circuit stop with the misrepresentations of fact. Write a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue. Enough is enough.

The author takes the accusations made in this article seriously, and submits this article in full knowledge of Rule 8.2 of the Model Rules for Professional Attorney Conduct.

 

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 7784663
Copyright: donscarpo 

 

The Author

Burman York (Bud) Mathis III

Burman York (Bud) Mathis III is a sole-practitioner in the Washington D.C. area with experience in patent drafting and prosecution, opinion writing, due diligence, litigation and appellate work. Mr. Mathis technical expertise and experience is far-ranging. For example, Mr. Mathis’ experience covers a wide variety of highly-technical subject matter that includes wired and wireless communications (including MIMO, 3G, 3GPP/LTE, D2D and 4G technology), analog and digital electronics, image processing, semiconductor devices and processes, solid-state physics, material science, printers and copiers, projectors, cameras, speech recognition and synthesis, xerography, cryptography, control systems, magnetic and optical disc technologies, fiber optics, MEMS technologies, nanosensors, GPS navigation systems, software, computer networking and business methods.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 24 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Bemused October 8, 2019 6:28 pm

    Good for you, Bud. Wish more of your brethren at the bar and on the bench had one half the guts that you just displayed by writing this article. The CAFC has become a joke. Whatever happened to concepts like truth, justice, equity, character, morality, doing the right thing, integrity, and respect for the law?

    Sure, to their faces we are respectful and deferential because we want to win our arguments and our cases. But the truth of the matter (just in case anyone who sits on the CAFC actually reads this blog) is that the majority of stakeholders in the US Patent System (inventors, lawyers, PTO employees) think these judges are either corrupt and dishonest or just plain dumb (maybe both).

  2. Pro Say October 8, 2019 7:39 pm

    Thank you Bud.

    Congress: Where are you? What are you waiting for? When will you end this innovation eligibility morass (without caving in to Big Tech’s demands)?

    When?

    2020 is now less than 90 days away.

    Less than 90 days . . .

  3. Pro patent rights 4all October 9, 2019 4:06 am

    Judges and Politicians are both making money off of Silicon Valley, the system is broken but the elites don’t care just as long as they are getting a slice of the pie. Silicon Valley stock are trading 3x to 4x higher the they did in 2011 before the anti patent bill was passed the AIA Act. Humanity is going down a very dark path that needs a major reset.

  4. Paul Cole October 9, 2019 7:16 am

    On this theme, I would invite attention to a brief that I filed in Ariosa v Sequenom

    https://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/cole-brief.pdf

    Quoting from the brief:

    The amplification product was misclassified as a natural phenomenon and not as a non-natural composition of matter contributing to eligibility as a manufacture under § 101.

    The end point of amplification is not cffDNA but instead is a synthetic product made from nucleotide monomers and resulting in isolated oligonucleotides of length determined by the primers used for amplification, e.g., in Example 1 of length 198 base pairs. The isolated oligonucleotides are not within the definition in the panel Opinion since they are derived from the supplied nucleotide monomers, not from the fetal DNA and since isolated oligonucleotides do not circulate freely in the maternal bloodstream. The fact pattern here diverges materially from that in Myriad where neither wild-type BRCA1 nor the corresponding cDNA were reported as having been isolated as real and tangible molecules. That was recognised by Judges Moore and Bryson , and also, it is submitted, by the Justices of the Supreme Court .

    In addition to the change in chemical nature, the isolated oligomers at the end point of amplification are increased in concentration by a factor of 1,000 to 1,000,000 and to a point where they can be detected, e.g., by ethidium bromide and fluorescent light, whereas the unamplified cffDNA is not. Following the language of Judge Learned Hand in Parke-Davis, the real and tangible oligomer sequences in their amplified form have become for every practical purpose a new thing commercially and analytically, see also Kuehmsted and Merck. In Mayo, it is implicit that the Court did not intend to overrule established case law about new drugs or new ways of using existing drugs (slip opinion at p.18), and the same reasoning applies to the amplified oligomers here. Moreover, these short sequences satisfy the criteria in Hartranft which was approved in both Chakrabarty and Myriad (slip opinion at page 12). In Hartranft a change of form accompanied by new utility is the hallmark of a manufacture, and hence also implicitly patent-eligibility consistently with the reference to utility in § 101.

    The amplification step in the claimed process which produces DNA in the new form of oligomeric sequences in vastly higher concentration than before and is accompanied by new utility since it can act as a substrate for analysis whereas cffDNA cannot. The amplified sequences are the product of human ingenuity being a non-naturally occurring composition of matter having (following the wording in Chakrabarty and Myriad) a distinctive name (amplified maternal plasma sequences), character (short oligomer sequences in high and analyzable concentration) and use (analytical detectability) not possessed by maternal cffDNA. Accordingly, these sequences in the context of maternal serum and plasma testing meet the eligibility requirements of novelty and new utility set out in Hartranft and contribute to § 101 eligibility for the method claimed herein.

    In hindsight, and looking at the more recent Athena decision, I would regard Judge Reyna’s opinion as based on the most egregious errors, both factually and legally in jurisprudential history. Just suppose he had been wrong by a factor of 1000 to 1,000,000 in the financial area where he used to practice before he became involved with the Fedral Circuit.

  5. Anon October 9, 2019 7:42 am

    Won’t
    Happen.

    The simians in the cage of the CAFC have simply been too well trained by the fire-hose wielding Supreme Court.

    The score board is — and will remain — broken, and we will not (and should not) expect the branch of the government that broke the score board to voluntarily fix that broken score board.

    It appears that the difficult task (made ever more difficult because of “voice$” of the likes of Citizens United) will fall to Congress.

    I do hope that the continuing “exploits” of the Judicial branch are being noted by Congress.

  6. Anon October 9, 2019 9:19 am

    Mr. Cole,

    As much as we may “tussle” over nuances of patent law, I wish to share a separate point here about your past brief:

    ANY clear points that you presented (including clear and unmistakable incongruities of the Supreme Court with its own decisions), are being ignored across all levels of our judicial branch.

    They are being ignored because to NOT ignore them would necessitate admitting that our Supreme Court has broken the score board of the statutory patent eligibility law of the US.

    It is the Supreme Court that has created the core of the Gordian Knot, while certainly they and all other levels of our judicial branch continue to add layers of rope to that core Gordian Knot.

    I know that you have advocated that attorneys as officers of the court should do a better job of guiding the court, but what do you advocate when that better advocacy IS present — and IS ignored?

    B’s (personal) exploits have been fairly well covered and his coverage here also show that “attorney guidance” cannot be the answer.

  7. angry dude October 9, 2019 10:12 am

    Pro patent rights 4all @3

    “Humanity is going down a very dark path that needs a major reset”

    Not the humanity, just this particular country – USA

    China is doing just fine innovation-wise and will soon eat US for breakfast

    Lemmings in this country better start learning Chinese even just for reading VR headset manuals (I bought some on Alibaba and all instructions are already in Chinese – they do not care for English anymore – tells you something…)

  8. Curious October 9, 2019 10:44 am

    This is what I wrote in the same article by Wen Xie:
    However, we are taking the Federal Circuit on their word that the inventive concept was merely wireless communicating status information. With a priority date of May 29, 2003, I find it hard to believe that such an invention would not be considered obvious. As such, there is probably something more to the invention that the Federal Circuit is glossing over.

    Frankly, it is embarrassing to anyone who works in this profession to have attorneys at the pinnacle of our profession (i.e., the Federal Circuit) blatantly misrepresent the evidentiary record. There is so much the ends justify the means going on at the Federal Circuit that it makes me sick. Moreover, this has been going on long before the Supreme Court foisted this 101 mess upon us.

    What makes this even worse is that the District Court judges are emboldened to do the same thing. If the people at the top are misrepresenting the record in order to invalidate patents, so can they.

    Let’s just call the Federal Circuit what it appears to be — a kangaroo court.

  9. B October 9, 2019 12:06 pm

    @ Curious “Frankly, it is embarrassing to anyone who works in this profession to have attorneys at the pinnacle of our profession (i.e., the Federal Circuit) blatantly misrepresent the evidentiary record.”

    The question is: “Why would a number of appellate judges misrepresent factual records — not cherry pick, but completely misrepresent factual records?”

  10. TFCFM October 9, 2019 12:43 pm

    BM: “Indeed, the record is clear that the claimed data format is the distinguishing hallmark of the ‘275 Patent.

    That seems a tad difficult to believe in view of claim 1 of the 275 patent. All it has to say about “data format” is:

    …the wireless status condition data transmitter transmits a status condition signal that:

    corresponds to a present operational status condition defined, at least in part, by at least two operating states from the plurality of operating states; and

    comprises an identifier that is at least relatively unique to the movable barrier operator, such that the status condition signal substantially uniquely identifies the movable barrier operator.

    That is, the “data format” appears to require only a signal that includes two pieces of information:

    1) the “present operational status condition” (i.e., the same information transmitted through a wire by non-wireless garage door openers) and

    2) an “identifier” (like the wireless opener units of all garage door openers do) so that the unit identifies the signal as coming from your, rather than your neighbor’s unit.

    Even ignoring that the mere informational content of the signal is analogous to written text (which is not relevant for eligibility purposes), this is STILL just a prior art garage door opener in which a wire has been replaced with a wireless link.

    All the Very Outraged puff and blow in the world doesn’t change that.

  11. concerned October 9, 2019 12:49 pm

    Angry Dude @7:

    ????

  12. B October 9, 2019 2:08 pm

    @ TFCFM “That seems a tad difficult to believe in view of claim 1 of the 275 patent. All it has to say about “data format” is: . . . That is, the “data format” appears to require only a signal that includes two pieces of information: 1) the “present operational status condition” (i.e., the same information transmitted through a wire by non-wireless garage door openers) and . . . .”

    Yes, and that’s was enough to defeat anticipation and obviousness challenges. No one ever did it before, and an informed jury in view of an evidentiary record found the claim nonobvious.

    “this is STILL just a prior art garage door opener in which a wire has been replaced with a wireless link.”

    Great, now why don’t to point to the exact place in the factual record or District Court opinion where your statement is supported.

    I’ll wait.

  13. Ternary October 9, 2019 3:01 pm

    “Even ignoring that the mere informational content of the signal is analogous to written text.”

    Opening a garage door by sending it a letter! This is very funny, and completely in the realm of metaphysics. Perhaps stories about opening a door by a magic spell (which is presumably wireless) should be considered prior art. It is all abstract matter anyway.

  14. angry dude October 9, 2019 3:18 pm

    concerned @11

    It is no secret that China has already surpassed USA in many high-tech areas – in large part due to diligent efforts by US congress, scotus, cafc and PTO to destroy incentives to invent in the US.

    One of those areas is VR/AR headsets – there are quite a few of those products available in China and they are very advanced and some of them come with very poor or non-existent English documentation as if they don’t care anymore
    China is a vast tech ecosystem of producers and consumers – bigger than US
    One day China will just swallow USA, tariffs or not

  15. Curious October 9, 2019 3:53 pm

    The question is: “Why would a number of appellate judges misrepresent factual records — not cherry pick, but completely misrepresent factual records?”
    Cherry picking is misrepresenting. Saying, for example, ‘Appellant argued X’ when in fact ‘Appellant argued X, Y, and Z’ is not cherry picking. It is misrepresenting.

    Even ignoring that the mere informational content of the signal is analogous to written text (which is not relevant for eligibility purposes)
    It isn’t analogous. Informational content of a signal is processed by a computer — has usefulness to a computer. It is not useful and intelligible only in the human mind. You don’t get to ignore it.

    I know, I know, patent infringers and patent examiners alike want to ignore as much of the claimed invention as possible.

    this is STILL just a prior art garage door opener in which a wire has been replaced with a wireless link
    You’ve just described the first part of the claim:
    A movable barrier operator comprising: a controller having a plurality of potential operational status conditions defined, at least in part, by a plurality of operating states; a movable barrier interface that is operably coupled to the controller; a wireless status condition data transmitter that is operably coupled to the controller
    What is inventive is the portion that you reproduced above and decided was worth ignoring. Thanks for playing. You’ll get your consolation prize on the way out.

  16. B October 9, 2019 4:07 pm

    @ Curious “What is inventive is the portion that you reproduced above and decided was worth ignoring.”

    The ignoring part is what CAFC judges do best. Judge Moore called out Taranto and Dyk on that

  17. Concerned October 9, 2019 5:17 pm

    Angry Dude:

    Sorry about the four ????

    The original post was the chinese symbols for “To the morgue” and the website defaulted the chinese symbols to 4 question marks.

  18. Anon October 9, 2019 6:12 pm

    Ternary and Curious,

    I have taken TFCFM to task a number of times recently for his (willful) disregard for nuances of patent law and innovation, and for merely parroting (BAD) Supreme Court nonsense.

    Here, he doesn’t even “rise” to the bad parroting — as your comments aptly illustrate.

    I suspect that he will do as he usually does: insult you and ignore you while “pretending” to take the higher ground and again state how willing he is to engage.

  19. Steve H October 10, 2019 9:13 am

    Re: Chaimberlain:

    1. I disagree with allegations of blatant corruption on the Court. Such allegations, made on innuendo, and perhaps a trail of decisions consistent with the hypothesis, are improper. A judge can be incorrect and even biased without being corrupt. While I agree that the evidence should not be mischaracterized, the holding of the case as precedent is limited to the recited facts in the opinion. Thus, the alleged mischaracterization of the prior art results in a narrow holding that would not apply to the alleged true facts. Of course, this does not help the patentee, but I gather that a consensus on this issue is that the stated holding is consistent with the stated facts.

    2. The wireless communication at issue is the backchannel, which tells the opener if the door is open. While I have not searched the art, I doubt that wired systems had multiple access busses that required identification of the door, in order to know which door was open. While routing information on wireless networks is “ancient”, and the solution to the “problem” of identifying which door is open is obvious from first principals, the implementation of a solution that could be commercially successful in 2003 is not necessarily obvious, and this was the finding below. Thus, the unclaimed protocol is implicated.

    3. Perhaps the Court is actually advocating for the Congress to step in and fix the nonsensical farse of determining whether the conception of an invention, which represents a mental process, translated into a set of claims intended to cover the fundamental differences from the prior art, should be judged for “abstractness”. In my opinion, 103 should be the filter, and a set of claims that is too open ended and therefore reads on well-known, routine, and conventional “concepts”, should be unpatentable under the law of obviousness. If it is not obvious, then it includes sufficient distinctive structures or functions to be patentable. The added layer of patent eligibility as a matter of law results in unwarranted greater unbridled and extrastatutory judicial discretion.

    4. Perhaps, what is needed is a doctrinal flip-side. Is there an emerging body of law that disregards differences for infringement if they are merely abstract? Perhaps we need a judge to write: ” any element ignored for purposes of patent eligibility must also be ignored for purposes of infringement.” That would at least open the door for a discussion of parity.

    5. The eligibility doctrine should be revised to find that a claim cannot be interpreted to encompass infringements that are merely abstract. The burden should be on infringer to show lack of tangibility of the infringement and preemption. The claim itself should not be deemed invalid unless no possible infringement is non-abstract. How did we get to a place where a claim must be written to exclude all patent ineligible subject matter, with the definition subject to change over time due to judicial philosophy and changes in technology?

  20. Daniel Wilton October 10, 2019 10:32 am

    Patent law involves money – profits – and wealth. Its current mastery by big tech is duly noted and sad. Note further that the law beyond patents and all its practitioners before and behind the Bar is in a similar state. And not a shot was fired.

  21. B October 10, 2019 2:15 pm

    @ Steve H “I disagree with allegations of blatant corruption on the Court” I’m sure the Chamberlain panel just accidentally got 100% of the facts wrong. Three judges and between 3-12 clerks on the job, and they all got it 100% wrong.

    “While I agree that the evidence should not be mischaracterized, the holding of the case as precedent is limited to the recited facts in the opinion.” Tell that to every inventor who lost his/her patent because the CAFC ignored the law and/or mischaracterized the facts while proclaiming the opinion “not precedential”

    “While I have not searched the art, I doubt . . . .” The record, including the applied art of record, is massive. Please take no offense, but perhaps a review of the art is pertinent before comment on what the pertinent art does or does not disclose. Chamberlain’s counsel actually took testimony from the inventor of the Menard application.

    “Perhaps the Court is actually advocating for the Congress to step in and fix the nonsensical farse . . . “ So you see the Chamberlain opinion as a cry for help? Interesting, but I respectfully state that there’s a better way send a cry for help than misrepresenting the factual record. The Supreme Court doesn’t care about “mistakes” of fact. See Rule 10.

    “The added layer of patent eligibility as a matter of law results in unwarranted greater unbridled and extrastatutory judicial discretion.” Judge Giles Rich actually wrote the 1952 Patent Act to get rid of the capricious judicial vetoes on patentability. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court cannot read.

    “Is there an emerging body of law that disregards differences for infringement if they are merely abstract?” No. it’s too difficult to reverse 200 years of jurisprudence. The Alice/Mayo doctrine is the only accepted milieu of ignoring claim limitations. In Wonderland, everything is abstract and no one knows what a inventive concept is. Judges Plager, Linn, Moore, and O’Malley wrote some marvelous stuff on this. Also, Judge Reyna once got it right in McRO v. Bandai, i.e., intangible and abstract are two different things. Great case but the holding was days later. Can you even name a case where the patent was saved by McRO? Maybe there is, but I don’t seem to recall such. Same with Enfish.

    “The eligibility doctrine should be revised to find that a claim cannot be interpreted to encompass infringements that are merely abstract” Better yet, how about we dispense with the Alice/Mayo doctrine?

    “How did we get to a place where a claim must be written to exclude all patent ineligible subject matter, with the definition subject to change over time due to judicial philosophy and changes in technology?”

    THAT is the right question.

  22. Night Writer October 10, 2019 10:12 pm

    @19 Steve H. 1. “I disagree with allegations of blatant corruption on the Court.”

    I think everyone that has watched this knows what happened. SV selected the judges based on a history of being against patents and probably a willingness to agree to get patents “under control” in exchange for their appointments. SV then gave the people to appoint to Obama.

    That is how we got to where we are. Taranto was vehemently against patents at the DOJ and quote Benson. Chen was vehemently against information processing patents at the PTO. Etc.

  23. Joachim Martillo October 11, 2019 5:48 am

    SCOTUS’ Mayo decision makes no sense. I can argue that it is logically inconsistent. If a logical system is inconsistent, both p and ~p are true.

    The Mayo decision has been enshrined in the two-part Alice Mayo eligibility test. The decision provides guidance to the CAFC and the DCs. In 50 years the Mayo decision will provide comic relief in 1st year law school classes.

    With such guidance how can the US patent system be anything but broken? One does not have to assume judicial malevolence to explain insanity in the US patent system.

    If the US patent system goes over a cliff, so does the US economy, US technological development, US medical advance, US discovery of new drugs, and the US ability to develop new systems that cope with global warming.

    Any Justice that supported the Mayo decision should resign in shame immediately.

    Could any of these culpable Justices do better that 120 on the LSAT? For those unfamiliar, the LSAT is the US Law School Admissions Test. A law school applicant receives a 120 for picking up the (MS Surface) test tablet with the examination scratch book and then returning them at the end of the test.

  24. Jose can you see? October 15, 2019 4:08 pm

    Joachim Martillo: SCOTUS’ Mayo decision makes no sense.

    That precisely sums up the Alice/Mayo.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website