Comments for Patently-O https://patentlyo.com America's leading patent law blog Mon, 21 May 2018 02:39:10 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.5 Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Greg DeLassus https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408547 Mon, 21 May 2018 02:39:10 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408547 Is a book with particular non-functional words in it anticipated by or simply rendered obvious over a book with no language in it?

I vote “anticipated.”

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Greg DeLassus https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408546 Mon, 21 May 2018 02:32:07 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408546 [T]he concurring opinion from Newman [is reasonable].

Agreed. As usual when Judge Newman writes separately, she has the better analysis. Those “provide information” steps read on printed matter, and that is all that one needs to know in order to decide this case correctly. The majority’s digression into “mental steps” is as unhelpful as it is unnecessary. The majority’s straightforward printed matter analysis is fine, but they could and should have simply stopped there.

]]>
Comment on Patents as Holdups and the DOJ Controversy by Janusz A Ordover https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/patents-holdups-controversy.html#comment-408539 Sun, 20 May 2018 20:30:40 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23400#comment-408539 Amazed by the anti-Google venom. Still, the commenters might be interested to know that at least one signatory has never received any funds from Google and has worked on matters opposing Google.

Ex-academic

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Paul Morgan https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408537 Sun, 20 May 2018 17:47:12 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408537 Also note that even J. Newman supported the majority decision including its reversal of that part of the IPR decision re-allowing some claims.

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Paul Morgan https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408536 Sun, 20 May 2018 17:39:54 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408536 NW, Ironically, one reason legislation to dump patent litigation back to 13 different circuits has no more chance that the proverbial snowball in hell is that the Fed. Cir. is regarded by many outside the patent field, including the Sup. Ct., as too PRO-patent.

]]>
Comment on Respecting Foreign Judgments and $79 million for clicking “I agree” by Paul Morgan https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/respecting-judgments-clicking.html#comment-408534 Sun, 20 May 2018 17:04:50 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23416#comment-408534 Surprised this cert petition does not even attempt to raise the question of whether or not provisions in contracts for software that prohibit “the observation, study or testing of the functioning of the [copyrighted] program” are unenforceable as against public policy and/or beyond the valid scope of IP protection. [The Sup. Ct. has previously held certain patent licensing contract provisions unenforcable on that basis.] Or why the cert petition does not at least question the SCOPE of contractual “reverse engineering” prohibitions.

]]>
Comment on Respecting Foreign Judgments and $79 million for clicking “I agree” by anon https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/respecting-judgments-clicking.html#comment-408533 Sun, 20 May 2018 16:23:10 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23416#comment-408533 Fascinating interplay!

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Night Writer https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408531 Sun, 20 May 2018 15:08:17 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408531 >However, the role of information in patentability depends on the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention as a whole. Neither the inclusion of information in the patent claim, nor the mental component of the
practice of process steps, negates eligibility under Section 101. The discovery of previously unknown information may well lead to new and useful technology; and mental steps often are needed to move through a sequential process. The conflation of “information” with “mental steps,” whereby both are designated “printed matter,” adds neither clarity nor precision to the law.

This is reasonable and the concurring opinion from Newman. I just don’t see anyway that patent law is going to be reasonable as long as Lourie and Prost are judges as well as the Google judges. I am strongly in favor of eliminating the CAFC due to it being stacked with anti-patent judges.

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Night Writer https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408530 Sun, 20 May 2018 14:44:33 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408530 OK. Nice Martin. Nothing to do with what I said, but OK.

]]>
Comment on Printed Matter, Mental Steps, and Functional Relationships: Oh My! by Martin Snyder https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/printed-functional-relationships.html#comment-408522 Sun, 20 May 2018 03:01:47 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=23417#comment-408522 Deener said a method MUST have a result. I agree with that. That result should be construed as a matter of law, based on a mixed inquiry, just as a claim is construed.

]]>