Sequenom v. Ariosa (on petition for writ of certiorari 2016)
Sequenom’s petition for writ of certiorari argues that the Federal Circuit and the lower courts have “dangerously overextended Mayo” and its bar to patent eligibility and that clarification is needed from the U.S. Supreme Court. The science at issue is fascinating and stems from the problem of running dangerous fetal DNA tests. The discovery here was that fetal DNA can be found floating around the blood of the pregnant mother and that the fetal DNA can be selectively amplified by focusing on the paternally inherited portion of its DNA (rather than the maternally inherited). Sequenom’s patent claims two simple steps: (1) amplifying paternally inherited DNA from a plasma sample taken from a pregnant female and then (2) detecting the presence of the DNA. Of course, the technology for these two steps was already known in the art at the time of the invention, and these two steps were (and are) the fundamental steps generally used to detect particular DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found these claims unpatentable under Mayo v. Prometheus because they effectively claim the unpatentable natural phenomenon: the existence of paternally-inherited cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in the maternal bloodstream.
The petition for writ of certiorari asks the patent eligibility, but does so in a way that attempts to also lead the court to the answer:
Whether a novel method is patent-eligible where: (1) a researcher is the first to discover a natural phenomenon; (2) that unique knowledge motivates him to apply a new combination of known techniques to that discovery; and (3) he thereby achieves a previously impossible result without preempting other uses of the discovery?
The brief here does a good job of attempting to set-up some dividing lines for the Court – if it wishes to draw them. The petition will have strong support from industry as well as many in academia. However, it is unclear whether a ‘win’ here for the patentee would translate to support those seeking to patent software inventions.
I read in my CIPA Journal yesterday that CIPA (the UK’s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys) submitted an Amicus Brief. CIPA sits on an island in the Atlantic Ocean mid-way between the EPO and the USPTO, the home of English law but nevertheless these days embedded in the mainland European Romano-German civil law thinking that holds sway in Japan, China and a good deal of the rest of the world. The invention here was of course conceived on the island.
One would therefore think that the CIPA Brief would be worth reading.
Can any kind reader put up a Link that will take me to that Brief? Would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.
There will hopefully be a CIPA amicus brief, but there is now slightly less than 30 days within which to file it.
Paul, 30 days is a lot of time.
April 29 (for a different matter) is more than 30 days away…
😉
Title is a red herring. Infringement is the real issue. A product may be sold, and title transferred, without authorization from a patentee. If the product is covered by a patent and the sale is not authorized by the patentee, the sale constitutes infringement of the patentee’s right of exclusivity and necessarily results in a transfer of title (a sale is a transfer of title).
The purchaser continues to own the product and does not infringe the patentee’s right of exclusivity unless the purchaser sells or uses the product without the patentee’s authorization. Even if the purchaser infringes by unauthorized use, the purchaser (not the patentee) continues to hold title to the product.
If the patentee sells the product in the United States, the US patent rights are exhausted and can no longer be enforced in the United States. Since US patents are limited to the US, they cannot be enforced outside the US. Consequently, so there can be no exhaustion outside the US.
Oops. This comment was meant for the Lexmark article.
Steve, under the law, one cannot sell something and retain title. Your post seems to suggest that one can.
Steve also seems to think that there is no such thing as exhaustion – that even if you sell something, the person you sold the item too cannot sell it herself, less she commit patent infringement.
I think he is “off” on more than just the article.
Ned: It does not cover an existing process. There is no 101 problem.
Thankfully, Ned, that’s not the test for the subject matter eligibility of a method claim.
This isn’t terribly difficult stuff, as I’ve noted many times, but there’s a bit more to it than “hey it’s new!”. You should know better by now, as should everyone else. There’s no excuses for completely missing the boat in 2016.
“Detecting” natural phenomenon using prior art detection t0 0ls designed for that purpose is ineligible subject matter for the simple reasons that I and RG and the CAFC have provided. Granting broad “detect this ‘new’ thing using prior art t0 0ls designed for that purpose” patents inevitably leads to a land rush by the gr ifting class trying to free ride on the patent-worthy discoveries of others (in this instance, PCR). Is that what happened here? Probably not, but that doesn’t change the fact that the claim being sought is exactly that kind of ju nk. Learn to write better claims to avoid this problem and you’ll be g0lden. It’s not difficult.
The best way to promote progress in detection techn0l0gy is to grant patents on new detection devices, not to burden existing technology with endless “detect this thing” and “detect that thing” patents.
Spammy MM does it again. They shouldn’t allow patents on new alloys. It is ridiculous. They should just allow patents on new smelting equipment. As if that makes sense….
There really is no sense to anything you write MM. You are a total propagandist and judicial activist for the anti-patent movement. Clearly a paid blogger.
There really is no sense to anything you write MM.
LOL
Maybe next time you can try to address what I actually wrote instead of pulling some b iz arr0 strawman out of your behind and attacking that.
As we predicted long ago, the rich entitled class of patent maximalists will never, ever stop whining that they don’t have enough patents. It’s all that they know how to do. They take themselves very seriously but nobody else should because the more you listen to them the quicker you realize that (1) they don’t know what they are talking about and (2) they don’t care about anything except themselves.
NWPA is a quintessential example of these perpetually mewling babymen.
“Maybe next time you can try to address what I actually wrote instead of pulling some b iz arr0 strawman out of your behind and attacking that.”
Malcolm at his AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcolmDoes finest.
What a putz.
What a putz.
And like clockwork in steps NWPA’s longtime bff “anon” to spew an insult and nothing else.
“Alloys are ineligible for patenting because of people like you. Just like terr0rists!”
Complete bal0ney but, hey, whiny little babies love to play with bal0ney. And NWPA and “anon” are the whiniest little babies out there.
Cry me a river, babymen! What a pack of entitled cr e e ps.
Classic AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcolmDoes
A(n unfortunately) regular occurrence.
“Go figure”
MM, but the point here, MM, is no one tested maternal DNA for anything. No tests at all. Nada.
MM doesn’t want to know this. He just wants everything to not be patentable.
I’ve finally figured out that MM is in this area. That’s why he understands basically nothing about computer science and electrical engineering.
PB: MM doesn’t want to know this. He just wants everything to not be patentable.
Oh, lookie here comes PB the big li ar again! Can you imagine? A patent attorney who li es his behind off all the time because it makes him feel good! Nobody could have predicted such a creature showing up in a subject matter eligibility thread.
I’ve finally figured out that MM is in this area.
Wow! A real Sherlock Holmes! Yes, I have a Ph.D “in this area”. Surprise! I’ve only said so a thousand times.
he understands basically nothing about computer science and electrical engineering
LOL Comp00ters is teh hard! It’s especially hard to figure out how they look up rules and compare stuff in a database. Whoooo boy it just makes everybody’s head spin!
In fact, like a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you, PB, I started programming at age eleven. That was a long time ago. Since then I’ve collaborated with some of the sharpest computer programmers out there, both during my graduate career and (of course) during my career as a litigator.
Fyi, I’ll add you to the long list of the junk patent lovers who deride their critic’s intelligence but who are incapable of understanding straightforward arguments or writing one in basic English. Just keep crying, crybaby! There’s more to come.
no one tested maternal DNA for anything
You’re wrong. Maybe you misspoke? I’m not going to assume anything with you anymore.
Yes, MM I misspoke.
No one tested maternal plasma for DNA. I think those were the facts here. Of course, the facts may not be correct.
No one tested maternal plasma for DNA. I think those were the facts here.
Nope. Wrong again. People tested maternal plasma for DNA and they even used PCR to do it.
That’s an important fact: there’s nothing special about maternal plasma that prevents PCR from detecting DNA floating around in it.
Heck, people were even using reverse PCR which is more complicated and requires more enzymes to detect RNA in plasma. And RNA is more labile than DNA.
Anything else?
“Nope. Wrong again. People tested maternal plasma for DNA and they even used PCR to do it.”
Not sure if that is on the record before us….
I “get” why you want to “say so,” but the mere “say so” – especially from you – is just not all that compelling.
Yes, it also has to be useful. It can be invented or discovered.
It always helps to go back to the actual law:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
These claims seem to meet the requirements: The relate to a discovery of a new and useful process.
PB: It always helps to go back to the actual law:
It also helps to understand that the Supreme Court interpets laws and pretending that they haven’t interpreted 101 numerous times in 9-0 decisions that will never be overturned is something that only a deceitful or incompetent attorney would do.
If you want to sit in an ech0 chamber and freely weep with your fellow feeble-minded hacks about perfectly reasonable Supreme Court decisions, then you know where to go. Or you can dry those tears and grow up. Or just admit that you lack the brains to have the discussion.
Make the best choice for you.
PatentBob, the process was not the discovery. The fact that fetal DNA was present in maternal DNA was the discovery. A fact. A fact of nature.
When a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or product of nature is involved, the claim cannot be on it. What can be claimed is a new process using the discovery.
Here the process claimed was new because of the testing of the maternal plasma for maternal DNA was literally new.
I just say that it seems clear that the Feds did not understand Mayo. There was no new process at all. Everything was old but the information obtained. To allow such a patent would be to make infringements of people who practiced the prior art.
Ned: The fact that fetal DNA was present in maternal DNA was the discovery.
No, that wasn’t the “discovery”. If you can’t keep the basics facts straight please just stay out of the discussion. It’s the right thing to do.
the testing of the maternal plasma for maternal DNA was literally new,
It was very well known that there was maternal DNA in maternal plasma. Please get the basic facts straight.
What can be claimed is a new process using the discovery.
Sure. What’s being claimed here is not a new process for using “the discovery” but a broadly defined old process for detecting “the discovery”. It’s a huge distinction and a big problem for the applicant on a number of legal fronts.
MM, I misspoke there.
However, if the petition summarizes the facts correctly, it was not known that maternal plasma had fetal DNA.
Now if this is not factually correct, we have a different case.
From the first two sentences in the petition:
“In 1996, two doctors discovered cell-free fetal
DNA (cffDNA) circulating in maternal plasma. They
used that discovery to invent a test for detecting fetal
genetic conditions in early pregnancy that avoided
dangerous, invasive techniques.”
Is there something special about cell-free?
Now, MM, it is my contention that the operative facts are that no one prior to the invention used any method, new or old, to
“detecting paternally inherited nucleic acids”
in
“maternal plasma,”
which seems to be term used for “non-cellular fraction” of maternal blood.
This process is literally new.
All that’s “new”, Ned, is the natural phenomenon being detected.
You’re argument (like Sequenom’s) is semantic.
Thankfully there are tons of experienced patent attorneys like myself out there who see right through the sorts of arguments you’re making. And we all know what happens to those arguments when we get to the Supreme Court (which we most likely won’t because why would they waste their time?).
MM, it does look like we do have another disagreement on what the Supremes are likely to do when they take this case, and I think they will take it.
Ned, you prompted me to look again at the EPO decision and I find it to agree with you on what is the contribution to the art and the patentable novelty. Now, was it obvious? At the EPO, the Opponent bears the burden of proof, under the EPO’s special Problem and Solution Approach and in this case that was quite a challenge for the Petitioner for revocation. Besides, the Petitioner didn’t even turn up, to present its case at Oral Proceedings.
Which all goes to show how hard it can be , once a patent is granted, to get one of its claims struck down as obvious.
Max, unless, as you can say the patent solves a known problem with a solution that was trivial, I daresay that patent should not be invalidated for lack of quasi novelty we know as lack of invention.
At the USPTO, unfortunately, petitioners are using the claims themselves to find reference that, combined, have all the limitations, filing petitions and then having patents invalidated under the ritualistic chants of KSR.
“ I daresay that patent should not be invalidated for lack of quasi novelty we know as lack of invention.”
whaaaatttt?
As pointed out in the Committee Report, it has been recognized for well over a hundred years that not everything which is new is capable of being patented. The newness, that is the difference over what was previously known, must be sufficient in character, or in quantity, or in quality, in order that the new thing may be patented. This requirement has commonly been referred to as the requirement for the presence of invention; when the requirement is not present it is stated that the subject matter involved lacks invention. The comparison is between the subject matter claimed to be patentable and what is disclosed or described in the available statutory prior art material, and it is irrelevant whether the claimant knew or did not know this prior art material. The inventor may indeed have made an invention in the psychological sense, but it would nevertheless not be patentable if the quantum of novelty over the prior art material of which he may have been in total ignorance was not sufficient. This requirement for invention with which we are here concerned is more of a legal concept than a psychological one.
The source of the requirement under the prior statute has been variously attributed. The opening clause of old R.S. 4886 which specified the classes of patentable subject matter (see section 101), began “Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, etc.” Two requirements may be found here: novelty (although novelty is further defines to referring to the conditions which defeat novelty), and utility (which condition is not further defined). The use of the word “invented” in this phrase has been asserted as the source of the third requirement under discussion. However, a different origin, with which the language and arrangement in the new code are in harmony, has also been stated. This is that the requirement originally was an extension of the statutory requirement for novelty. Expressions such as “patentable novelty” and “patentable difference over the prior art” have been often used as synonyms, and the problem involved is in fact an assessment of the quantum or quality of the novelty present. The famous “doorknob case” in the Supreme Court, Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (Dec. term, 1850), is usually cited as the first case to make requirement. It is commonly stated that this case involved the question of invention in making a doorknob from clay or porcelain, but this was not the actual question involved, and the decision of the court plainly implies that if the patentee had been the first to make a doorknob of clay or porcelain there would have been no question as to the validity of the patent involved. The actual facts were that doorknobs made of clay or porcelain were old and that doorknobs made with a certain shaped hole for attachment of the shank, but made of metal, were also old; the doorknob of the patent had the old shape of the metal doorknob and was made of clay or porcelain, the old material for making other doorknobs. There would be very little question today as to the unpatentability of a device with such a difference over the prior art. The Supreme Court, with a dissenting opinion, found the patent invalid as involving no more “ingenuity and skill” than possessed by “an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business.” Although other language is also used, one quotation from the decision is significant, “No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, or materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one; or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.” This would place the matter on the basis of novelty, the new machine cannot be distinguished from the old, hence it is the same, and is not novel in the sense of the patent law. Even before the date of this decision, expressions such as essentially anticipated, not essentially new, substantially alike, and not materially new, are found in some decisions.
Federico on the new 103.
In pieces – this filter bl0ws
How in the world does a block quote from Federico – with nothing more – support your frankly
0ut
land1sh
statement at 4:22 pm above regarding NOT invalidating?
If anything, your particular choice supports my oft stated comments on what happened in the Act of 19582
vis a vis Congress choosing to use obviousness rather than
the [blocked] of the court’s attempts at “invention.”
Federico speaks of the true (and remaining) value of the pre-1952 opening clause (now 101) – quite different from the conflated attempts we see in those attempting to re-write history as if the Act of 1952 did not happen.
Add to this the other architects recollection (see the Hricik side of the blog), and it is beyond clear that I have a far better handle on this material than you.
Here is the claim at issue:
“If you can’t keep the basics facts straight please just stay out of the discussion. It’s the right thing to do.”
IF ONLY Malcolm would adhere to his own advice offered here….
…tell me about the facts regarding inherency and how [Old Box} magically somehow has ALL future innovations that come by way of the manufacture known as software already in there.
And then tell me how you “stay out of the discussion” – (and staying out AFTER you dump your pile of C R P in a drive-by monologue does not count).
Yeah, thought so.
From covering a product or law of nature, there is no 101 problem.
Max said: (Note that the paid bloggers are probably going to spam the thread because they don’t like this message.) This is exactly right.
The Petition cites the equivalent Decision in Europe (T0146/07) to dismiss the attacks on validity. Mindful of the prohibition (Art 52(2)(a) of the EPC) of patents for “discoveries, I turned to the Decision, curious to see what claim was found to be not invalid. Here it is:
1. A detection method performed on a maternal serum or plasma sample from a pregnant female, which method comprises detecting the presence of a nucleic acid of foetal origin in the sample, wherein said nucleic acid is a paternally inherited sequence which is not possessed by said pregnant female.
WHAT! No separating step? No amplification step either? Discovery? Pre-emption anybody?
Fun, isn’t it, how claims to the same (?) invention vary, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Mind you, the view at the EPO is that the Inventor who makes a new and inventive contribution to the useful arts ought to be in line for a patent on it, but only insofar as the scope of the claim is commensurate with the contribution to the art. As here, I would say.
Ah, but did you note just how quickly MaxDrei turned tail and became docile when challenged by Malcolm?
Memories of the fire hose when reaching for a banana…
…or the dangers of maintaining a “false” politeness instead of a healthy debate (over whatever point MaxDrei had originally thought of contributing).
Apparently such is the “desired” ec(h)osystem
Yes but:
i) see 7211111 below. The petitioner for revocation in Europe ducked out of disputing validity before the case went to the decisive January 2011 Hearing before the EPO Appeal Board. For whatever reason, Petitioner lost its motivation to dispute validity before the Board came to a decision.
ii) my position is that the EPC text is Quality, but that not all advocacy under the EPC is of adequate quality. Poor quality advocacy does not prove that the substantive law of the EPC on patent validity is also poor. MM expressed himself unimpressed by the quality of the Petitioner’s advocacy on his side of the Atlantic.
iii) so I don’t see it as an issue whether I am “docile” and at what point in the discussion I became “docile”. Even if few others do, I for one would like to see more inventions made in Oxford enjoying strong commercial success;
iv) at the EPO, fact-finding is different from what it is before a court in England. No discovery. No cross-examination. MM’s view of validity might accord quite closely with what an English court would find, after discovery and x-exam. He knows this technical field, and I don’t.
“Whether a novel method is patent-eligible where: (1) a researcher is the first to discover a natural phenomenon; (2) that unique knowledge motivates him to apply a new combination of known techniques to that discovery; and (3) he thereby achieves a previously impossible result without preempting other uses of the discovery?”
I thought the whole issue in this case was that the court determined 3 to not be the case in this particular instance?
Yes, whether or not some of the claims here are so broad as to preempt every possible test of the unborn child as long as it is done from a sample of the mother’s blood, does seem very much of a still-open issue here? Especially since they are not claiming or limited to any unconventional or specific testing methods.
It depends on how one defines “preemption.” But it would not make sense to define”preemption” so broadly as to encompass prior art blood tests on blood from any other sources since no valid claim can preempt prior art.
All claim pre-empt.
That is what they do.
All claim pre-empt.
Right. That’s why “pre-emption” is only a problem when a particular claim or class of claims “pre-empts” ineligible subject matter that belongs to the public. That’s certainly the case when the applicant attempts to broadly monopolize the use of a conventional detection tool to detect a natural phenomenon that the applicant “discovered” through the use of the coventional detection tool.
Pretty easy stuff. You’d have to be a captured agency (like the PTO) or someone trying to directly capitalize on the PTO’s incompetency to struggle with this one. It sure the heck ain’t about “women’s health” (and let’s face it: the class of attorneys favoring patent maximalism are the last people on earth we should be looking to for advice on that front).
Not sure what your point is.
ALL claims “broadly monopolize” (to use your words) what they claim.
It’s more than a misnomer to rely on “conventional as you attempt to do, conflating 101 with 102/103.
That’s just the Big Box of protons, neutrons, and electrons in action for you.
“anon”: t’s more than a misnomer to rely on “conventional as you attempt to do, conflating 101 with 102/103.
And again we see the patent maximalists pretending that they didn’t get their b-tts handed to them in Mayo.
Do they think they’re f00ling anybody? Are they ign0 rant? L i ars? Or both?
The last option seems most likely.
Except not – as has often been pointed out (you might notice this if you actually engaged the counter points put on the table for discussion)
Same old Merry Go Round from Malcolm…
“anon” the counter points
Ah yes, those “counter points” that were “never addressed.” Sure they weren’t! Because “anon” says so. And he’s super serious.
He’s not a totally crazzy g00n with severe antis0cial tendencies. Nope. He’s super serious!
Sure he is.
Malcolm, your type of “address” simply does not count because it is void of any cogent legal points and is just your typical recitations from your short script (which includes the ultra banal “so serious” line of C R P).
But you already knew that, eh pumpkin.
>>Yes, whether or not some of the claims here are so broad as to preempt every possible test of the unborn child
1) There is patent law that polices claims that are so broad as to cover new inventions.
2) So, what you are saying is you can’t claim what you invented/discovered. That is the real agenda here. Just bizarre. Only people that are completely ignorant of science and innovation would take views like this.
But, don’t worry. Google is going to take care of that innovation thing that is needed for the economy like Goldman Sachs takes care of the financing part of the economy. No worries. Everyone just needs to get a job with Google or Goldman.
Concur. An extremely narrow claim today – will look extremely broad in the future. Just the nature of progress.
iwasthere: An extremely narrow claim today – will look extremely broad in the future.
What about the extremely broad claims, like the claim at issue here?
What will they look like in the future?
The answer is that they will look like bad j0 kes.
The petitioner doesn’t understand what “pre-emption” means.
It’s a common problem.
To paid bloggers.
101 Skeptics should be clamoring for this claim to not reach SCOTUS. Yet another example of a claim that has been struck down by 101 for convenience and could not survive rigorous post-KSR 103 anyways.
Until the bar can locate such a case there will be no 21st century Diehr. There is a reason Mr. Heller was not a DC gangbanger and Citizens United was just a group that wanted to run a documentary on Pay-Per-View: Good facts make good law. Maybe we as patent practitioners should learn this fundamental aspect of advocacy.
You’re saying Citizens United is “good” law?
“The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.”
link to publicintegrity.org
To me, this “law” has allowed a truly shocking amount of money to flow into political campaigns. We’re talking on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars for campaigns. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
PatentBob, since the Bill of Rights, the press (the loud voice of its owners, who are companies and unions) has been protected. The First Amendment is not simply about the rights of individuals.
Saying that companies and unions have loud voices because they have money does not change the fact that they are like the press when they speak. Powerful voices are needed and desired in elections.
That said, the stink of corruption of certain politicians throughout their entire career, from the time they made 100,000 in one day on a paltry investment, to the numerous “speaking engagements” at ridiculous fees, to using influence and power to obtain enormous “contributions” from Sheiks. The scale of corruption is something to behold. Holding power to this person is solely about influence peddling and always has been.
I am glad that Sanders is running against such corruption. I wonder why he does not point fingers.
On, and just to be fair, there is another politician in this race who openly admits to buying influence. I don’t like this side either. Crony capitalism. We need to stop electing corrupt politicians.
Except a corporation is not like the press at all. The corporation is pushing their particular point of view. The press is at least theoretically supposed to be unbiased and at least has some forces to make it so. Much like the checks and balances in our Constitution.
Nettles, the pattern with you is consistent. You see nothing wrong with not telling the full truth when it suits you. Typical Nettles: press and corporations: similarity both put out information to the public. Differences: massive to an intellectually honest person, but for the Nettles no difference because it suits his nasty little world views.
You see that is why you are intellectually dishonest and worthless for any type of intellectual discussion. That is why I do not engage you in real discussions because you think nothing of ly ing.
“Much like the checks and balances in our Constitution.”
Perhaps a little less “compelling” and a little more “on point” for our “blog ecosystem,” once upon a time there were blog posting rules that indicated that such “corporate speech” was not allowed in the blog comments, that all comments were limited to personal views.
I have demonstrated conclusively (and as feedback to a previous Prof. Crouch call for “clean up yhe ecosystem”) that Ned’s non-personal posts led only to gamesmanship, shi11ing for a particular viewpoint, the absence of FULL discussions on the merits, and plainly twisted and incorrect portrayals of law, facts and history.
When “truthiness” is treated as merely a convenience and something to be selectively adhered to based on business objectives, we have entered an Orwellian system of government in the mega-corporatism mode.
That’s not good for anybody.
anon, I think that is basically right. I think there are propagandist, advocates, and intellectual discussers. The propagandists like MM push visions and fabricate a whole new reality. The advocates tend to just ignore facts to push their position. The intellectual discussers tend to be interested in the understanding what is going on with the law. The propagandists are the anti-patent judicial activist.
But, –in reality–you can’t really have a discussion with propagandist or advocates. You can understand their positions and dig for weakness, but there is never going to be a meeting of the minds. They have an agenda and that is all that matters to them.