6 thoughts on “Amgen v. Sandoz

  1. 3

    A non-sequitur:

    Who thinks the following claim is patent-ineligible under Alice (besides EDVA District Judge Gibney)?

    1. A system for enabling the exchange of reporting system information over a computer network comprising:
    at least one web server operatively connected to one or more client systems over a HTTP-communication protocol network, wherein the at least one web server and one or more client systems communicate reporting system requests and information without downloading any executable files from the web server to the client system;
    at least one reporting server operatively connected to the at least one web server, wherein the web server and the reporting server communicate using an extensible markup language;
    at least one data storage device operatively connected to the at least one reporting server; and
    the at least one reporting server executing the reporting request from the at least one client system using the at least one data storage device and transmitting the retrieved information to the at least one web server using the extensible markup language;
    wherein the retrieved information is converted, at the at least one web server, to HTML or DHTML and transmitted to the at least one client system without downloading any executable files and wherein the at least one web server does not have a direct connection to the at least one data storage device.

    1. 3.1

      That is a non-sequitur.

      It’s also a description of old technology. Web servers are old, servers hooked up to web servers are old, and data storage devices hooked up to servers are old (with or without ‘direct connections’). The only (alleged) “innovation” recited in the claim is the information that is being communicated between the parts of the system. You can’t use a patent to protect information, regardless of the field in which the information is being protected. Therefore: ineligible.

      You don’t need Alice to get this result by the way. You just need to use your brain.

      1. 3.1.1

        Agreed. Breaking the claim down we see:

        1. a web server and a client systems communicate reporting system requests and information;
        2. a reporting server … communicate [with Web server];
        3. a data storage device connected to the reporting server;
        4. the reporting server executing the reporting request using the at least one data storage device and transmitting the retrieved information to the web server;
        5. the web server transmitting the retrieved information to the client system.

        All this does is retrieve information from a storage device and report it back to the client system. The only difference from the prior art is the kind of information reported back. Everything else in the claim seems old, and old in combination.

        The claim does have an awful lot of very unnecessary prolixity, perhaps for the purpose of hiding something like the proverbial needle in a haystack?

    2. 3.2

      link to law.justia.com

      Funniest quote from the opinion: MicroStrategy contends that the server’s ability to carry out automatic archiving based on classification information makes it an intelligence server instead of a generic computer.

      Oooh! It’s “automatic”!

      New flash: re-labeling old technology with functionally descriptive terms won’t rescue your ineligible junk. It doesn’t matter if your terms are silly (“intelligence server” <-LOL) or some high-falootin' acronym. A good defense team and a smart judge will see right through it, every time.

  2. 2

    MM, from the 10,000 foot view, if congress had intended the dance to be mandatory, it would have held up a bio-similar license pending the dance, and would have appointed a special master or the like to supervise it. As it is, if one does not comply, the only remedy is an infringement lawsuit where submission of the application itself seems to be an act of infringement.

    Also, why would the dance be necessary at all if the reference license holder does not have patents in the US. They really don’t need them given that they have 12 years “exclusivity” just by getting a reference license in the first place. I assume it takes several years to prove all the requirements to obtain a license in the first place so that patent expiration and exclusivity period would tend to expire about the same time anyway.

    I think Lourie is entirely correct here.

  3. 1

    The Shehan and Karst link is very useful. Be sure to read their previous entries on Judge Seeborg’s district court decision and the appeal briefing!

    link to fdalawblog.net

    link to fdalawblog.net

    I’m rather curious as to how some of the statutory intepretation gurus around here view the CAFC’s work here. Is the Republic crumbling?

Comments are closed.