Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law

Upcoming Events

2015 IP Dealmakers Forum

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering.

9 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. 4

    “Would you agree that the idea of an abstract idea is abstract?”

    A Federal appelate judge asked this question in court in the Amdocs v. Openet oral argument. People laughed.

    Hahahahahah! So funny.

    And then the Federal appellate judge argued that the district court judge “created a problem for us.” That judge apparently was born yesterday.

    Moments later a second judge praises the concept of a generating an invoice for a user as if it’s revolutionary because “Internet.”

    1. 4.1

      “That judge apparently was born yesterday.”<– referring here to the CAFC judge. What comes next is pretty amazing.

  2. 3

    If you’re looking for a bit of the surreal, check out Wednesday’s oral arguments in Wireless Inc. v. Facebook where three Federal judges debate the “technological” fine points of social clubs … without ever ackowledging that social “clubs” with rules about who can “belong” and who has access to information are as old as human civilization itself.

    What a joke of a patent system.

    1. 3.1

      Rule 36 affirmance. Facebook doesn’t infringe thanks to claim construction.

      Wireless Inc’s claims could have been swatted down in two seconds under 101 but that would require Facebook to admit that most of its own portfolio is pure crxp. And so the farce continues.

  3. 2

    This petition for cert may be of interest to some:

    link to

    15-307 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

    (1) Whether Article III’s case or controversy requirement can be satisfied when the suit seeks a judgment of non-infringement of a disclaimed patent; and

    (2) whether Congress can create Article III jurisdiction by imposing statutory consequences that turn on obtaining a judgment of non-infringement of a disclaimed patent.

  4. 1

    Looks like the odds of Promega’s petition being granted are getting better all the time. Golly, I wonder how this is going to turn out?

    link to

    The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the federal government to weigh in on a dispute between genetic testing rivals over whether a company can single-handedly induce infringement of a patent by combining components of a patented invention abroad.

    Life Technologies Corp and its attorneys at Sidley Austin had petitioned the high court in June to review a December 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which they say incorrectly expands the extraterritorial reach of U.S. patent law and foists on companies a “potentially crushing burden of U.S. patent infringement liability for worldwide sales.”


          His “posting” is a mere “cut and paste” from a very short script.

          It takes him about 2 nanoseconds per post.

          Now if you wanted thoughtful analysis and non dogmatic evaluation, well, such is just not in his repertoire.

Comments are closed.