Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

23 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 8

    It’d be nice to see the PTAB reversal rate data divided up by Tech Center.

  2. 7

    Off Topic – but of possible interest, I just saw a Law 360 article about the Eleventh Circuit ruling wiping out the State of Georgia’s copyright control over annotations to its official code.

    See Georgis, et al., v Public.Resource.Org, Inc. link to supremecourt.gov

  3. 6

    this situation is strictly a battle between two different branches of our government

    ROTLFMAO

    Thank goodness there’s no people involved.

    1. 6.1

      Try again – this time without butchering the parse job.

  4. 5

    Cmon Repu k k ke patent attorneys out there. Are you that ashamed of yourselves?

    Question: Can the President practice patent claims with impunity?

    Assume the President isn’t black.

    1. 5.1

      Wow – your monomania really is something to behold.

      The answer to your “question” does NOT depend on whether the government entity is the President himself (your thin veneer is rather transparent). “Impunity” is entirely a facet within Takings law. Such has NOTHING to do with the current president, the party of the president, or any other attribute with which you would deign to take issue with the president.

      Maybe you can apply your “thinking” to something more substantive…?

      1. 5.1.1

        What’s the answer, Bildo? I know you pretend to be very concerned and serious about the “rule of law”. So tell everyone the answer and tell everyone where you find legal support for the answer.

        You’re a very serious person after all, and totally not a rightwing hypocrite who weeps like a baby when Perznit Br@inworms criminal activities are highlighted in your sacred spaces.

        LOL

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Find an appropriate forum for your thinly veiled tantrums and out of control feelings.

          Come back when you want to discuss actual patent law issues.

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            actual patent law issues.

            ROTFLMAO

            The existence of an entity with immunity from the patent laws would seem to be problematic, particularly when the entity is a criminal surrounded by other criminals and a host of sle @zeb@g “attorneys”.

            But, then again, you and your s00per serious cohorts always have had difficulty keeping your priorities straight when Rich White Daddy is implicated.

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Your various ISMs are noted — as is your lack of ability to recognize my first reply to you pointing out that your thinly veiled insertion of your feelings has no actual basis on your proposed issue.

              Not that such will stop you from your usual flogging…

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Your various ISMs are noted

                It’s your “isms” that have been “noted”, Bildo.

                Trust me on that.

                LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  5. 4

    Re: Joyce Allaire: C3J Therapeutics Announces Issuance of U.S. Patent Covering Synthetic Bacteriophage (Source: Associated Press)
    An extremely important subject. Massive world-wide indiscriminate feeding of antibiotics to farm animals has bred bacteria immune to all available antibiotic drugs. Those bacteria are projected to increasingly kill hundreds of thousands of humans. Bacteriophages [anti-bacterial viruses] are reportedly the only effective option for many patients. Those bacteriophages occurring in nature cannot, of course, be patented, so pharmaceutical companies will only be financially incented to develop non-natural phages.

    1. 4.1

      …whose utility is only by way of a natural law and a “apply it” totally within a human body scenario – calling out several Supreme Court jurisprudential positions…

      (just saying)

  6. 3

    Contrast Candeub with Hylton and Xu.

    Careful there Candeub – you appear to want to attack a purely FTC problem (enforcement) by wanting to weaken patents – not a great move, and the much better move would be to simply have better FTC decisions.

    A foundational element of the US Sovereign patent system is the fully alienable nature of the patent as property. While certainly accumulation of any property asset may well fall under FTC review for its mission, there is nothing that calls for the error of singling our patents and trying to constrain the patent right (nor is it proper to raise the “boogeyman” of litigation to enforce patents as a type of ‘Tr011’ call that is in your writing).

    1. 3.1

      A foundational element of the US Sovereign patent system is the fully alienable nature of the patent as property.

      Can a sitting President purchase patents from third parties and assert them against US citizens?

      Assume the President isn’t black.

      1. 3.1.1

        Can a sitting President purchase patents from third parties and assert them against US citizens?

        As a private citizen, what in the world would you propose as stopping him from obtaining (and enforcing) property?

        As a non-private citizen (in his capacity as a government official), see my already provided reply as to Takings Law.

        Either way, other than you being self-serving in your flogging, did you have an actual point that you were trying to make?

        1. 3.1.1.1

          what in the world would you propose as stopping him from obtaining (and enforcing) property?

          So your answer is: “Yes, a sitting President can purchase patents from third parties and assert them against US citizens.”

          Thank you! You’re a very serious person, after all. It’s good to know where you stand, and especially good to know where you stand at this moment.

          1. 3.1.1.1.1

            Again – did you have a point? Do you think that being the president precludes the person in their individual capacity from transacting in property deals, and what — pray tell — is the legal basis for these feelings of yours?

  7. 2

    Can the President practice any US patent claim with impunity?

    Would love to hear from the Re pu k k ke lawyers out there.

  8. 1

    Stephenson: IF the Office follows the new protocol, THEN you have not seen anything yet.

    (granted, this is only through the executive branch)

    1. 1.1

      … even Random can tell you all that – eh Random? Have you had your refresher training yet, as I know that you have most likely slipped back into your old habits. Maybe a refresher with SRI cabinning EPG, eh?

    2. 1.2

      … and before we all get “excited” in thinking that this situation is strictly a battle between two different branches of our government, let us all remember the critical fact that what the Executive Branch has attempted to do with its new Protocol was to simply excuse itself from the writing of law by way of Common Law evolution that IS being done by the judicial branch — and being done in a manner that HAS created a Gordian Knot of conflicting case law.

      I have pointed out the express statement by Director Iancu – and one that certain (infamous) posters here only seem to insinuate is not a reality.

      But not only is such a reality – it is a fundamental outcome of the Supreme Court nonsense and their meddling in writing (NOT interpreting) the eligibility patent law of 35 USC 101.

      Cue the Kavanaugh Scissors.

      It must be remembered that even within the single branch of the judicial branch, that 35 USC 101 has been rendered into that Gordian Knot.

      Stephenson does not make this point clearly enough, as its focus is solely within the Executive Branch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture