arrow7 Comments
  1. […] Patent Baristas » Court: It’s Not An Invention If You Use Conventional Techniques To Make It http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/04/09/court-its-not-an-invention-if-you-use-conventional-techniques-to-make-it – view page – cached #RSS 2.0 RSS .92 Atom 0.3 Patent Baristas » Court: It’s Not An Invention If You Use Conventional Techniques To Make It Comments Feed Patent Baristas Update on Biotechnology Ariad Patent Shot Down, Lots of Questions Remain Book Review Monday: Burning the Ships — From the page […]

  2. […] Patent Baristas has (as usual) a good run-down of the decision, concluding with: “The only thing that’s certain is that the Patent Office will begin hammering biotech patents on obviousness starting more than ever.” […]

  3. EG
    Apr 13 - 7:58 am

    Steve,

    Your fear is quite justified. Witness the mess created by the Bilski decision in the POBAI opinions since. There’s absolutely no consistent logic in these POBAI opinions in applying the fundamentally flawed (in my view) “machine or transformation” test of Bilski. You can expect similar inconsistency as the PTO examining corps, as well as the POBAI, tries to apply Kubin. More chaos in our already chaotic area of the law.

  4. Stephen Albainy-Jenei
    Apr 10 - 7:10 am

    My fear is that the Patent Office, armed with this decision, will now hand out obvious rejections left and right for every invention made using “known” techniques.

    How often will an applicant be able to come back and state that they used some heretofore unknown laboratory method(s) to make the final invention?

    Stephen

  5. EG
    Apr 10 - 4:12 am

    Kevin Noonan’s critique of Kubin on Patent Docs is very insightful. Kubin is fraught with problems, including how well did this panel understand the technology involved, and especially what the art did (and particularly didn’t) teach relative to the claimed invention, overruling existing Federal Circuit precedent (In re Dueul) in a panel decision based on a reading (or in my opinion a misreading) of one statement by the Supreme Court in KSR International, and relying on the applicant’s own application to establish a point (in violation of a fundamental principle of patent law that the applicant’s own teaching is not to be used as prior art). For these reasons alone, Kubin needs to be reviewed by the entire Federal Circuit en banc.

  6. Rakesh
    Apr 10 - 2:55 am

    Mostly all chemical compounds are prepared by the conventional chemistry processes.

    Based on this judgment what will be the stand on Chemistry Compound patents and process for the preparation of chemistry compounds.

  7. James C. Roberts III
    Apr 09 - 9:48 pm

    Without defending or opposing the court’s holding, I can understand their reasoning. Indeed, the holding will narrow the range of patents granted but that is the way the system works. Biotech patents are not entirely foreclosed.

    I am mulling over a larger issue of licensing. If earlier patents are now challenged on the basis of this opinion, then many licenses may be in jeopardy. Going forward, the impact is less clear.

Mobile Theme