Cert Denied

  • 19-522 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT’L V. IBG LLC, ET AL.
  • 19-353 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT’L V. IBG LLC, ET AL.
  • 19-521 CHARGEPOINT, INC. V. SEMACONNECT, INC.

The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in these three eligibility cases largely clearing the docket of pending petitions in patent cases.  There are a few remaining:

Awaiting decision:

  • Thryv v. Click-to-Call (appealability of time-bar denial; 314(d) and 315(b));

Pending Cert

  • Thryv follow on: Arris v. Chanbond; Superior v. Voltstar
  • Eligibility: Maxel v. Fandango; Cisco v. SRI; Reese v. Sprint
  • Apportionment and Preclusion: Apple v. VirnetX
  • IPR Arguments Beyond the Petitions: Chrimar v. Juniper
  • IPR Unconstitutional Taking / Due Process Violation: Collabo v. Sony

 

 

 

46 thoughts on “Cert Denied

  1. 5

    Gene’s blog today notes that “Shockingly, the disagreement that has shelved the long-awaited legislative fix for 35 U.S.C. 101 is among those who support reform. It seems the various constituencies that want 101 reform have their own demands and – if you can believe it – would prefer no change to a change that doesn’t give them 100% of what they are seeking.”
    No surprise, we see that in comments here frequently. Even totally unrealistic demands for depriving the Sup. Ct. of patent law jurisdiction, for preventing any validity challenge to any issued patents other than by million dollar + jury trials with no technical or patent education [no matter how quickly, cheaply or badly the PTO may examine applications given the very low U.S examination fees], etc.
    Also, just as with the proposed 101 legislation, confusing the very different interests in two completely different 101 case law grounds, subject matter applications and interest groups. That is, confusing claiming things already existing in nature [especially in the human body and primarily of concern re medical diagnostics patents] versus claiming end results so broadly as to cover any other actual inventions for accomplishing that same result [almost entirely of concern re software related patent suits, which are now majority PAE suits].

    1. 5.1

      Even totally unrealistic demands for depriving the Sup. Ct. of patent law jurisdiction

      Heady stuff from the coward that won’t even engage on any legal merits of SC jurisprudence.

      Paul, the appropriate reply to your nonsense is: bite me.

    2. 5.2

      The good news of that post is that it shows that even the fever swamps are coming around to the compromises necessary to achieve reform. There a bunch in the comment thread below that article, suggesting that they prefer to go to the barricades. Nevertheless, Gene Quinn speaks for a large slice of the interested stakeholders in this debate. If he is willing to get behind last year’s text as a means of moving the process forward, that shows that former hold-outs are warming to the sort of compromises that are necessary to get legislation done.

      1. 5.2.1

        Lol – “fever swamps.”

        Hey, I’ve got a Trojan Horse for you. Why don’t you “come around,” accept it, and pull it into your city…

        What could go wrong?

  2. 4

    “Dear Supreme Court,

    I want to claim a new otherwise ineligible abstraction in a prior art context. Can you tell me how to do it? It must be possible! Some guy on the Internet told me that the 1952 patent act nullified all your earlier precedent on subject matter eligibility and surely that person must have a serious point and not be a total hack.

    Oh yes and if you don’t give me the result I want we are going to take away your right to decide patent cases. So there!

    The fate of the hard working small inventor and patent-filer who is the backbone of America and freedom is in your hands.

    Sincerely,

    Richard White
    Vacation Home Garage
    Malibu, CA”

    Pretty much sums it up, I think.

    1. 4.1

      What does “in a prior art context” mean?

      Is that like curing rubber (with the abstraction of using the Arrhenius equation)?

      1. 4.1.1

        Rather than struggle with interpreting a very poorly written Supreme Court decision (and one that means very little that is non-trivial in view of Mayo and basic reasoning), why not just learn to read English and try to understand the words in a comment as they are written?

        Which part of “in a prior art context” do you find confusing?

        Tell everyone.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          Oh, so very Malcolm to try to a) dismiss a Court case that YOU cannot explain and do not like, and b) turn this around and have someone else explain something when the point of the post was to have YOU explain something.

          That you attempt this game with your usual mindless and off-point ad hominem is beyond banal.

        2. 4.1.1.2

          … and after (if) you ever man up and actually address points put to you, you can touch upon the “prior art context” of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

          1. 4.1.1.2.1

            And there it is.

            Heckuva job, Dennis. Great “culture” here. Super “civil”!

            Missouri style.

            1. 4.1.1.2.1.1

      2. 4.1.2

        Is that like curing rubber (with the abstraction of using the Arrhenius equation)?

        The invention in that case was the thermocouple sensor, not the use of Arrhenius to cure rubber.

        1. 4.1.2.1

          Diehr was obvious. Why bother trying to construe the “invention”?

          1. 4.1.2.1.1

            “Diehr was obvious”

            Perhaps but not under 103 to the requisite imaginary man.

            1. 4.1.2.1.1.1

              6,

              Ben, as a fellow Examiner, is oblivious to the legal distinction that you offer here.

            2. 4.1.2.1.1.2

              I don’t think the facts support that conclusion. The differences between Diehr and the prior art were 1) analog for digital computer substitution, and 2) thermocouple location. The examiner was presumably snowed on point 2 because they were not a chemical examiner, and their acceptance of point 1 is simply silly even for the 1960s. Diehr should have been rejected as obvious.

              1. 4.1.2.1.1.2.1

                “The examiner was presumably snowed on point 2 because they were not a chemical examiner,”

                Or because the art of record just wasn’t that amazing. Or because it was, and still is, inventive as of that date.

                1. You’re balancing ungrounded speculation against engineers of the 60s not recognizing very simple placement tradeoffs of 50 year old technology. This again appears to be a case of wallet motivated reasoning. Do you convert all those allowances into OT?

                  US 2227263, from the 30s, shows engineers knew that thermocouples could be embedded in molds rather than through molds and into work pieces. Anyone who knows anything about heat flow, even back in the 60s, would understand “thermocouple in work piece, more responsive, but damages work piece” and “thermocouple in mold, less responsive, but no work piece damage”. To suggest otherwise is simply silly.

                2. ” This again appears to be a case of wallet motivated reasoning. Do you convert all those allowances into OT?”

                  You’re a retard bro. Just because the examiner in the case didn’t have that great of art in any specific case doesn’t have any bearing on muh reasoning.

                  “You’re balancing ungrounded speculation against engineers of the 60s not recognizing very simple placement tradeoffs of 50 year old technology.”

                  Not at all. “They” (engineers) could very well have recognized such. Doesn’t matter. Gotta consult the imaginary man.

                  “US 2227263, from the 30s, shows engineers knew that thermocouples could be embedded in molds rather than through molds and into work pieces.”

                  And was that found by the examiner? No? Whoopsie.

                  “Anyone who knows anything about heat flow, even back in the 60s, would understand “thermocouple in work piece, more responsive, but damages work piece” and “thermocouple in mold, less responsive, but no work piece damage”. To suggest otherwise is simply silly.”

                  I never suggested any such thing. You’re arguing against a non-existent “suggestion” which I never made. Tard.

        2. 4.1.2.2

          You are of course quite wrong yet again Random.

          Maybe try to take off those confirmation blinders that you have on….

        3. 4.1.2.3

          “The invention in that case was the thermocouple sensor, not the use of Arrhenius to cure rubber.”

          You can tell him that a gazillion times it won’t penetrate. You could draw him a claim diagram, and match limitations and mo fo still would insist that it was like totally in the prior artz (all refs) and in the right context of all the refs and totally obv to combine into all the refs! You could show him an actual issued OA in that case stating as much and he still wouldn’t believe it.

          1. 4.1.2.3.1

            …maybe because I have engineering experience in those arts and know better.

          2. 4.1.2.3.2

            It’s times like this that I miss the late Ned Heller and his “Point of Novelty” miscues that highlighted the fact that the only such “Point” in Diehr was software.

            You really need to learn to recognize dicta, 6, and understand underlying facts of a situation. The plain fact of the matter is that the advance in Diehr simply was not any new thermocouple, because there was NO new thermocouples there.

            What you have (and mirroring the ‘Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons” putdown), is configurations of known items.

            Anti’s like Malcolm and Random refuse to be inte11ectually honest about the Diehr case, and it is more than evident why.

    2. 4.2

      MM bro I’m glad you didn’t go to the great Oppression in the Sky a bit ago. Was concerned that I was oppressing you too much.

      1. 4.2.1

        How touching.

        1. 4.2.1.1

          I’m sure MM was touched. Before he got back to work for me. :)

          Thanks again MM, for all of your hard work bro.

  3. 3

    Probably all for the best that cert. was denied. The folks hoping that the SCotUS will fix this mess—after working so hard to make it—are largely kidding themselves.

    1. 3.1

      If the SCotUS takes cert., the decision ensuing would be more likely to make things worse than better.

      1. 3.1.1

        I agree Greg. I suspect the Scotus is thinking “mission accomplished.”

    2. 3.2

      Yes, Greg, you and your ilk are a HUGE part of the problem.

      Maybe if you made the mildest effort imaginable to acknowledge the genuine logical/legal issues that are/were at stake in Mayo you could be a part of the solution.

      But instead you chose a different path. Good luck, Greg! You are a very, very serious person after all. Just hugely compromised and not very honest. But very serious!

      LOL

      1. 3.2.1

        Lol indeed — Greg’s “ilk.”

        ..as for the rest, meh, typical Malcolm Accuse Others vis a vis “honesty.”

    3. 3.3

      Supreme Court did not make this mess. They merely failed to fix it.

      A fix eludes them, and the CAFC, and the patent office, because nobody can reasonably place informational results into the statutory scheme of the patent act.

      1. 3.3.1

        Great. Let’s actually focus on the fact that innovation CAN BE (and is) placed into the statutory categories quite easily.

        1. 3.3.1.1

          Sez you. But 9 different notions on USSC and 11 on CAFT and a hundred here say otherwise.

          Everything that happens in the world is a “process”. Everything can’t be patented. Except to extrem ists.

          1. 3.3.1.1.1

            You are very confused, my son.

            Maybe try again with an understanding of what the word “exception” means.

            (hint: it IS within a category, but the Court is STILL taking an exception to the item…)

            1. 3.3.1.1.1.1

              So now the exceptions are legitimate? I missed the memo.

              In any case, they are no help. Laws of nature and abstract ideas are information, and the problem is, once again, dealing with informational results of methods.

              1. 3.3.1.1.1.1.1

                My comment says nothing about legitimacy. Why would you make that leap?

                I think too that YOU are too busy moving the goalposts from methods to results of methods.

                1. Methods have to have results. That’s how we know they are methods. The Supreme Court has said so. No result= no method. The result is the utility of the method. Maybe has a wee something to do with the eligibility of the method?

                2. Great – now move the goal posts back to the legal categories.

                  You DO get that we are on a legal blog, right?

                3. Round and round anon goes. And where he stops we already know.

                  But he’s a very serious person! He’s the soul of the blog, really.

                  Heckuva job, Dennis.

                4. Of course, Malcolm, we all know where I end up: with the proper understanding of the law.

                  You mistake the “round and round” though, as it is Marty that is (yet again) off into the weeds.

                  That’s like the third time in short order that you have used the phrase “heckuva job.” I “get” what you think that your phrase means, but it really does not mean that. All that your use shows is that you are once again presupposing the correctness of your own feelings and putting your ego above everything else.

                  So very Trump of you.

                5. … and as typical (and as noted as the actual driver of ‘round and round’), both Marty and interloper Malcolm disappear when the discussion of law is put on point.

                  It is doubtless that both will yet again at some future time try again with their errant and off-point excursions. As it is doubtless that they will also disappear when chided to be on point for the legal discussion.

                  Round and round, indeed.

  4. 2

    Jurisimprudence.

    Yet again.

  5. 1

    Great news on the very denial.

    Hilarious to see the same irresponsible attorneys and their academic cheerleaders making arguments that completely ignore the actual issues.

    But that’s been the game all along, hasnt it Dennis?

    Let’s talk about it sometime, in public.

    LOL

    1. 1.1

      As opposed to the academic (and non-academic) cheerleaders rooting for continued denigration of strong patent rights, you mean?

      Sure, let’s talk about that. Better yet, let’s make sure that your talking accords with at least some minimal level of inte11ectual honesty while we are talking about that.

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