by Dennis Crouch
In spite of robust amicus backing, including from the US Solicitor General, the Supreme Court has declined to review two pending patent-eligibility petitions: Interactive Wearables v. Polar and Tropp v. Travel Sentry. These cases contended that the Alice/Mayo framework produced (1) instability and unpredictability in the law; (2) facilitated non-evidence based judgments by district courts; and (3) prohibited patenting of subject matter that has traditionally been eligible for patents.
In my perspective, these cases wouldn’t have led to pro-patentee opinions from the Supreme Court as the inventions involved were not firmly rooted in technology. Rather, the court would likely have regarded the appellate cases as correctly denying eligibility.
The case of utmost importance still awaiting judgment, in my opinion, is CareDx Inc. v. Natera, Inc. CareDx is centered around the eligibility of an important diagnostic method for early detection of transplant organ failure. In this instance, the patent holder (Stanford University) solved a significant, longstanding problem that others had been unable to resolve. However, the lower courts determined that the patent claims were improperly directed towards a law of nature. Another petition pending before the Court is the eligibility appeal in Avery Dennison Corp. v. ADASA Inc. In the Avery Dennison case, the patent for RFID unique-ID encoding was deemed eligible and therefore valid on debatable grounds. The patent challenger has petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts are unduly narrowing their eligibility assessment.
A further petition, Killian v. Vidal, was reportedly filed in April but has yet to appear on the Supreme Court docket. Killian’s patent application proposes a computerized algorithm for detecting “overlooked eligibility for social security disability insurance.” The petition contends that the uncertainty created by the courts, along with the non-statutory eligibility exceptions, amount to violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Due Process. Furthermore, the petition asserts that these judge-made exceptions “overstep the constitutional authority of the courts.” This petition has a minimal likelihood of being granted.
= = = =
The court also denied certiorari in the skinny-label FDA-Patent case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC.
If ya all can get the practice of Dueling re-lawfulized, then reckon most of the blather on blogs and even physical loci would become quickly more pleasant. I sense the legislatures lack any guts to do it, but there is always hope for every tragedy. 🙂
meh Chrissy,
Let words be used to fight with words.
(note that those who typically oppose me simply won’t engage on the merits).
I am perfectly happy to deal in both logic and snark, as each have their place – especially on a blog, and especially as I will deal with both and engage on the merits of opposing views (when such ever are put forth).
Oh no, Wendy, ha ha, my selected pronouns in the message were “ya all” as it was a general snick-joke for the collective needy lawyers who are humorists as well. But , idk , I hope you didn’t think it was about you. 🙂
What amazes me is that the el presidente candidates never yet mentioned “I will be the Pro-Patent President , if erected”. Who will be the first candidate to come in with, loudly “and give those inventors their day in court”… rah rah rah, to the cheers of crowds ??? Maybe Ms. Harris, in her run against the current Fla. governor. I do hope you are fine, I enjoy your postings, but only if you are the person I think you might be. Otherwise, not so much. hahahaha
I did not take it to be about me (per se, or as such), but as a general “let’s be nice” — which is something that simply does not accord with the foundations of our First Amendment.
Sure, being nice is, well, nice, but being nice is simply NOT always in order.
And if you think Ms. Harris has ANY substance, I do have to wonder what substances you have been ingesting.
ok, but there was no question, and you answered. If you can bottle that spunk up, I bet you could sell it.
You are somehow thinking that there must be a question for a conversation to ensue….?
That’s rather odd.
Aw, shucks no. I’d just saw evidence that you can’t resist but to reply to everything. But I can’t hold back the truth, it appears you’ve kicked everybody’s A most of the time on topics here. Are you really Judge Newman, posting anonymously perhaps ?
I love you Sally. :))))
LOL – you appear to be falling to the (purposeful) misapprehension that I “can’t resist.”
My choices are not a matter of lack of ability to resist.
I do enjoy the combination of last AND best word.
But to point here, no I am not Judge Newman (albeit honored with the comparison), and most often do push for engagements with those with whom I disagree as I do in fact most always do have the better position, and it is a function of those pushing agendas with the more p00r positions that they tend to run away from the engagements (while insisting on returning again and again on newer threads with the same positions that I have debunked).
If my erstwhile ideological combatants would engage to the logical ends AND learn from our encounters, you would likely see a lot less of my replies.
I look also at areas outside of patent law, which impact the ‘property rights” of patentees, without claiming to have any credentials. Example, isn’t it amazing the Sup. Ct. is still seeing issues like this: link to scotusblog.com
…. all these years later. Noteworthy was the commentary in Yale’s Law Journal at 47 Yale L.J. 1336 1937-38 titled “The Demise of Swift Tyson”. I sense the schools don’t teach the ramifications of these sorts of cases, but then again, as the Yale artle mentions, few took notice evan at that time. hahahaha. I bet a pot could be stirred by penning something along the lines of: How the decision in Swift impacted patentee rights 85 years later”, etc. 🙂
A sincere thank you Chrissy.
The Mallory case is an interesting one.
Do you see a parallel in the current patent forum shopping debacle (forum shopping ongoing by both sides of the ‘v’)?
For me, the notion of a corporation willing to take the benefits from doing business in a State is decisive as to the risk such a choice engenders with being sued in that State.
This is a corollary to the adage that my Uncle Ben used to say: with great power comes great responsibility.
Oh Carol, I’ve been such a fool!
“For me, the notion of a corporation willing to take the benefits from doing business in a State is decisive as to the risk such a choice engenders with being sued in that State.”
Of course, absent some possibly unconscionable action, no reasonable mind expects to be able to obtain the benefits, without being subject to the detriments of doing business in a forum /venue.
But, as the Sup Ct. once ruled, I think it was in a social security case, back in the 40’s, even the mere ability to access a benefit is enough to make the person to be subject to, even if the person has not actually received a benefit.
The forum shopping…. let me suggest that within mammalian cells, there is necrogenic radiation emitted within during the apoptosis process, this radiation is em waves, and there is also called mitogenic radiation, that which stimulates cell growth. In Law, as time passes, old laws die and new ones come about. In bio, the mitogenic radiation band overlaps with the necrogenic. Now, if we have some impurity in the system, say, a foreign fluorescent molecule, it can be seen perhaps to “shunt” some of the necrogenic energy, into the mitogenic, causing unregulated proliferations. I tend to look at the clearly-bogus forum-shopping shenanigans, as being that foreign fluorescent substance, shunting the energy of the entire Legal Organism’s effort, in a direction leading to increased entropy in the short term.
It’s all Equity, and with Equity, anything is possible ! Outcomes depend on the equitableness of the parties. Some parties are more equitable than others, but all parties are Equitable. haha, said Orwell never !!
Do States have standing to challenge, anything about which forum is selectable by parties suit to anything ? Yes, I know you have answers for this, and all I can suggest is… grab some popcorn 🙂
It seems not as a state’s rights issue of course, but that issue still plays on. Why move a case from Texas to California ? oh, its a federal matter, the states have nothing to do with it…. wrong. Its all about the state’s rights, albeit veiled. Because the ppl who would decide a case in District East in Texas, are Texans and same in other venues. So, technically not “states rights”, but de facto the venue change bullcrapola is about states rights, at a level I don’t have the tools to properly argue it, because I am a vegetable mechanic. 🙂 laters taters 🙂
On the other blog, Judge Moore says she is not the complainant. Should she transfer the inquiry to a different circuit?
Taranto is mentioned in Newman’s complaint, and given Newman’s dissent in Yu v Apple I have the feeling that Newman and Taranto do not appreciate one another.
While leaving from Pres. Trump’s inauguration, Pres. George W. Bush was famously heard to remark about the inaugural address “that was some weird s#!t.” Reading the 17 May remarks so far on this thread reminds me of that story.
When a war criminal thinks you’re weird…
Interesting comment as it provides you with the justification for the defamatory and disruptive comments.
Dennis, really? You have people defending writing defamatory comments because they feel the people on the other side the argument are “war criminals.”
Please enforce some rules.
Friendly reminder: This whining defender of a bona fide war criminal is the same guy who compared **critics of software patenting** to Islamic ter ror ists.
Keep it up, gramps.
Personally retraining thrn gutting the loose lips in the Secret Service and the FBI comes to mind. WTF are you waiting for? The election regarding Clinton and Trump screams Swiss cheese regarding loose lips.
Although I am thankful personally.
My cases show this was slowly becoming what it is. I can’t believe that it has gone this far down the road.
How long before the U S remains the head of all non lips.
George Dumbya Bush is a war criminal. Deal with it.
Is he any different than Clinton, Obama, or Biden in that regard, or are you only able to see “R” in this aspect of your world view?
Oh, lookie, one of the little f a s c i s t lizards showed up to gaslight everybody as soon as one of his kind got labeled correctly. Let’s watch him dance.
Your reply is empty, misses the mark and merely employed your own
A
O
O
T
W
M
D
As typical.
“Oh, lookie, one of the little f a s c i s t lizards showed up to gaslight everybody as soon as one of his kind got labeled correctly. Let’s watch him dance.”
MM said as Ukrainians are currently doing his bro Biden’s war crimes for him. On MM’s behalf no doubt.
Careful there 6 as you might expose the giant hypocrisy of “we must have secure borders (for Ukraine), while our own Southern border is left to be run rampant over with a veritable explosion of law-breaking illegal crossings (replete with drugs such as fentanyl, human trafficking, and yes (oh my) guns), to be met with the oh-so-Martha-Vineyards NIMBY and DE-sanctuary city aspects.
Gaslighting nonsense from the Incel Brothers. Again. Crawl back in the sewer, cr ee ps.
You clearly do not understand the term ‘gaslighting’ even as YOU are the one that most often does it here.
“Gaslighting nonsense”
Lol WUT? He literally is having a proxy war. His general literally said so. Just because you’re uninformed doesn’t mean the world stopped existing old man.
link to youtube.com
Or are you stating that Ukraine is not doing war crimes (while acting as our stand in against russia)? Because I have the vids of that as well (literally saved on my comp). As in the actual vids of the actual acts. They’re not super hard to find if you know where on the interbuts to find the good stuff from the Ukraine war.
“be met with the oh-so-Martha-Vineyards NIMBY and DE-sanctuary city aspects.”
You’ll be glad to know that leftoid policy on top of leftoid policy has finally created a migration crisis in NYC according to mayor Adams who thinks nobody believes him when he says it is a bona fide crisis.
His general literally said so.
What do you mean when you write “his general”? Whose general? Surely not Biden’s.
Gen. Kellogg retired from active service in 2003, well before Biden’s tenure even as Vice President, let alone his tenure as President. Afterwards, Gen. Kellogg served as Vice President Pence’s national security advisor, and briefly as Pres. Trump’s acting national security advisor following Gen. Flynn’s departure.
Gen. Kellogg has no connection—either formal or informal—to the Biden administration.
“Bush and Biden equally culpable for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by a war based on intentionally manufactured false pretenses because … 6chan has saved videos of “Ukrainian war crimes.””
I literally never said that ta rd. I said that you were busy telling us what you stated while at that very moment your man was having his proxy army fight russia and engage in war crimes in so doing. That is, I comment on the timing.
That does not however make muh culpbility equal. And the gee dub iraq war is a ridiculously complex topic that I’m not even going to get into.
“Okay, Incel! ”
Still misgendering me and denying black and/or brown grls are humans eh big ot? Just can’t help yourself can ya?
“What do you mean when you write “his general”? Whose general? Surely not Biden’s.”
That’s my bad, was the wrong vid, the vid I’m thinking of was not of a retired general it was of active staff, tho I may have been thinking of the defense sec not his general. I will find it and get back to you when I can.
6,
This General?
link to youtu.be
Not the one I was thinking of anon, I’m thinking it was actually probably Biden’s defense sec. In any event, that dude is obviously wrong, while ukraine may formally do well at the negotiating table and reclaim some ground, they’ve already lost the “war”, nearly half their population is gone, and most of that which left will never return. Sorry, that’s losing. For all intents and purposes, regardless of what is “gained” at the negotiations ending the war, they lost overall. And to be fair, it was an impossible war for them to win in the first place.
This is a sort of situation like in Tiger King: “I will never financially recover from this”.
For Ukraine it’s: “I will never actually recover from this in 4 lifetimes, maybe not ever”
If it could be said that old school russians wanted to genocide the Ukrainians back in the day, it’s been half achieved, again, in this war.
You might enjoy the Zeihan short-form podcasts….
Example: link to open.spotify.com
Bush and Biden equally culpable for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by a war based on intentionally manufactured false pretenses because … 6chan has saved videos of “Ukrainian war crimes.”
Okay, Incel! But don’t lose focus on the pizza parlor basements.
Felony coercion was accomplished when my mail went to BETHESDA, MD, instead OF LEESBURG, VA, then blocked from being delivered in NH and MA to form the criminal pact.
After that they gave the atty. Knowledge of the gift to drop his NH license, tell me why should this Atty. or others with the knowledge not have reported to both NH and MA legal bars. And if the conspiracy and felony coercion were. Werr letters from MA and NH emptied out and replaced with either nothing or lies.
And that is an illegal NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.
A subtopic has evolved in this group of comments.
Let’s be real: the people that degrade the dialogue are the anti-patent judicial activists and others. MM, Martin, and others resort to defamation to try and “cancel” comments they disagree with. Over on ipwatchdog, the moderators don’t tolerate the base defamation that MM and Martin have engaged in. They get banned and their comments deleted.
We need that type of moderation on this blog. One reason not to use your real name is that commentators like MM will with zero evidence call you base names and accuse you of committing heinous felonies. Who wants to comment on a blog where comments are left up that defame you and are clearly posted with an intent to silence you.
Really, Dennis, you need to stop allowing these types of comments and commentators.
And Martin commenting about this topic is rich. He is one of the worst in terms of defaming people and writing comments that are actually actionable. Martin really should consult with an attorney before he continues.
It is despicable (and actionable) behavior from MM (Prophet) and Martin and Dennis should not tolerate it. Accusing people of heinous sex crimes is per se defamation (statutory in some jurisdictions) unless you have some evidence, which we all know you do not.
And Dennis should realize the intent is to silence dissent, which, in and of itself, is something Dennis should find reprehensible.
I disagree, Night Writer.
Merely “finding reprehensible” invites the type of disdain for First Amendment (as I indicate in 9.1.1.1.1.
Still waiting for that list of commenters that you’ve sued for defamation. When can we expect to receive that?
He’s been distracted. Yesterday he chased a bunch of woke kids off his lawn and his favorite onion belt broke.
Breeze, tell us where you stand on what I wrote. And, really, “still waiting”, when did you start to wait? And, where did I say that I had sued one of the commentators?
Obviously, you want to deflect.
You posted that you have sued and will sue posters who have defamed you.
You also have posted under your anonymous screen name that Mark Lemley takes bribes from Google and that J. Stoll of the Fed. Cir. is “mentally unsound.” (Yes, that’s a verbatim quote of your post on J. Stoll.)
If it’s your position now that you didn’t say 1) that you have sued and will sue commenters on this site, 2) that Mark Lemley has taken bribes, and 3) that J. Stoll is mentally unsound then you are a l!ar.
Feel free to sue me, you ridiculous nut job.
You are just proving my point with these ridiculous contentions.
You’ve also accused me and others of being “paid to comment here.” Numerous times, even after you were told that was not the case and after you were asked to stop doing that because it was a l-i-e. Does that help refresh your memory, gramps?
“even after you were told that was not the case and after you were asked to stop doing that because it was a l-i-e. ”
Most definitely, a case in which Malcolm NEEDS to practice what he preaches.
“J. Stoll of the Fed. Cir. is “mentally unsound.” (Yes, that’s a verbatim quote of your post on J. Stoll.)”
I’ll back that as hard truth. 3rd rate intellect, and she’s written the opinions to prove it.
That said – opinion isn’t actionable
The party of civility, folks.
Smelly does a triple Malcolm:
Using “folks” to one-bucket in a non-self-aware political sense.
A word of advice for you, Breeze: stick to patent law.
You’re so uncivil that other blog banned you while you were using another name.
Was Breeze banned?
I am not so certain about that.
Further, merely being uncivil will NOT get you banned.
You must also have a reckless disregard for fact, law, or both.
Pretty sure it was the same guy – there’s only been one and Breeze is the only psycho who can’t resist spewing insanely-left politics into every post while being nasty to everyone.
Someone did point out (even as they may easily be confused for each other when veering into politics) that Breeze was indeed ‘traceable’ to a different poster, and that the current nom de plume is not in fact one that had been booted from IPWatchdog.
I could be wrong on this.
Breeze, you are mischaracterizing what I’ve said.
(3) I did say that Stoll is “mentally unsound” and that is from first hand conversations with her. Sitting in the same room with her. And with talking to people who worked with her at Finnigan.
(1) Where did I say I sued a poster? I didn’t say that.
(2) I have said that Lemley has received a lot of money from burning down the patent system. And his wife is a former Google executive. How Lemley has made money is complicated.
” I did say that Stoll is “mentally unsound” and that is from first hand conversations with her. Sitting in the same room with her. And with talking to people who worked with her at Finnigan.”
Her rep at Finnigan is less than stellar, and from a single first-hand encounter with her I am not impressed by her intellect or by her integrity.
If any one judge at the CAFC should be tossed I vote Stoll, Chen, or Reyna
Three for sale.
Does anyone have a theory on why the Supreme Court asked for the Solicitor General’s views in these three cases, then denied cert? It used to be that if the SG recommended grant, the court would grant something like 90% of the time. And if the SG recommended deny, the court might grant anyway, especially if the SG thought the decision was wrong.
If the court’s simply done with 101 and thinks it’s up to Congress (or the PTO or the Federal Circuit) to fix whatever needs fixing, then why bother asking the SG to file briefs in American Axle, Interactive Wearables, and Tropp?
The Teva-GSK case is a little less surprising, as that one seems unique. Maybe a majority of the Supreme Court either thought the Federal Circuit was right, or thought the facts are too messy for further review to add anything useful. Still surprising, though…. at least to me.
OT (in many parts), but the part that is at least tangent to your point on the circumference of the circle of the Supreme Court is the “corruption” 9-0 Reversal related to Cuomo related Grift:
link to open.spotify.com
Bonus parts: the grift of DEI discussed as well as a bare minimum takeaway from the Durham report (hint: it’s the opposite of the Woke “there’s nothing to see here, these are not the droids that you are looking for”
It’s said that laughter is the sound of surprise.
MM is the only one who reliably brings the lulz around here. I’ve never detected a change in mood suggestive of bipolar; they always seem irascible. I was so happy to them back on these threads. Considering the obvious pervasive personality disorder of ahem & the generally identifiable pathologies of MAGA types in general, MM/Prophet is probably one of the more adjusted people here, independent of the merits of their arguments, which are consistent.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that the eligibility problem is a policy choice that turns on the relationship between useful logic and the patent act cannot be taken seriously.
MM, at least, can be taken seriously.
It’s Opposite Day!
+1
Martin is someone that was accusing people of sexually abusing children with zero evidence as a way to silence them. MM (Prophet) was also accusing people of sexually abusing children to silence them and of being prostitutes in porn movies. In fact, both of them seem to have the intent to defame people to silence them.
Let’s get some perspective.
Martin is someone that was accusing people of sexually abusing children
W the ever-lovin F are you talking about? I’m on here with my real name and I’m not defaming anyone.
Unless you come with some proof of the above, YOU are the defamer, and I expect your retraction. Put up or s hut up- or demonstrate your own low character.
I assume the good sense of Prof Crouch will cause this garba ge to disappear soon enough.
I do not recall marty ever pulling a Malcolm in this regard.
You must be kidding me. Now you are denying it? Seriously Martin?
Wiper: “ Let’s get some perspective”
Comedy gold.
Says the pot to the kettle….
(With no hint of understanding the irony whatsoever)