Comments for The Fire of Genius

Comment on An Excerpt from Rossman - #1 by Lori Feldman

Lori Feldman — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:40:08 +0000

RE: Book written by Joseph Rossman, Industrial Creativity, the psychology of the inventor, was written by my great uncle. His little sister Minnie was my grandmother. I have another book he wrote called The Law of Patents for Chemists written in 1932. That one is interesting as well.

Comment on No Cartesians Here by Counsel for Classen

Counsel for Classen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:36:07 +0000

We are counsel to Classen Immunotherapies in the recent 12-19-08 CAFC decision Classen v. Biogen addressing section 101 post Bilski.
We filed a Petition for Rehearing on January 13th and are seeking amicus briefing.
We are only seeking to reverse that part of the opinion that states that immunization is not a transformation.
We would appreciate if you would consider filing an amicus brief in support of our request for rehearing and would also appreciate if you could help pass on this call for amicus briefs.
contact me at joe@zitotlp.com

Comment on No Cartesians Here by Tsai-Fang Chen

Tsai-Fang Chen — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:55:57 +0000

Hi Professor Miller,
Thanks for the analysis. I agree with your observation that the Federal Circuit’s opinion here is that there is no transformation instead of just insignificant extra-solution activity. I think it is a critical insight.

Do you think the reason that the method is not transformative for the Federal Circuit is that the recitation of the mammal is not central to the purpose of the claimed process? The claimed method is a comparison, and the method itself does not transform any particular article. Two groups of mammals are compared without transformation.

It is true that the claim recites a procedure of immunization. However you can see that the immunized mammals here are not “particular.” What the process does is not actually to “take” the mammal “from an unimmunized” state to an “immunized state,” but the comparison. Since the purpose of the claim is the comparison, the immunized mammal cannot be “particular.”

Additionally, Dr. Classen cannot seriously argue that immunization of a mammal is central to its claims, right?

Thanks for the insight!

Comment on No Cartesians Here by Joe

Joe — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:04:30 +0000

Step,
I think the Federal Circuit uses the modifier “particular” to sharpen up its discussion of the preemption risk to be avoided (under Benson). See, for example, this passage from Bilski: “a claim that is tied to a particular machine or brings about a particular transformation of a particular article does not pre-empt all uses of a fundamental principle in any field but rather is limited to a particular use, a specific application. Therefore, it is not drawn to the principle in the abstract..” 545 F.3d 943, 957.
As for Judge Newman, it’s a great question, but I have no insight about why she didn’t.
Best,
Joe

Comment on No Cartesians Here by step back

step back — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:12:36 +0000

Hey, Professor Miller,
Glad to see that you’re OK and back in the blogging world.

A short, non-scholarly tiff going on at Patent Hawk’s site re the Classen case.

Being that this is the more scholarly site, why do you think it is that Newman did not write a dissent here? Also, where in Bilski did they mention a “particular” article? I recall them talking about the not-yet-knowable “particular” machine. But where did they pontificate on the unknowable “particular” article? would appreciate your insights. Thanks

Comment on Nonobviousness at the Board by VashPlayday

VashPlayday — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:58:00 +0000

Please give me a prompt about a direct phone numbers provider with the bigest country coverage and cheap call forwarding to mobile phone which gives 800 number? I have to get the numbers in the Argentina, Great Britain, Germany, India, China, Korea, Norway, Peru, Philippines, France, Salvador.
?

Comment on Bilski Goes En Banc by Joe

Joe — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:51:00 +0000

Rajath,
The court hasn’t issued an opinion yet in Bilski.
But, we should see one soon.
Thanks,
Joe

Comment on Bilski Goes En Banc by rajath

rajath — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:13:58 +0000

Hey what is the progress of the case,which is reviewing the state street case? Have they cancel the patent?
Please let us know.

Comment on Injunction by Resource for Attorneys and Legal Professionals Containing Case Summaries, Judicial Opinions, Legal Rulings and Legal News-The Judicial View

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:26:25 +0000

[...] (2007) (reviewing post-eBay cases issuing compulsory licenses); Joseph Miller, Injunction Cases, click here (last visited Oct. 18, 2007) (listing post-eBay patent cases using four-factor test for determining [...]

Comment on 14 months of KSR World by Joe

Joe — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:32:44 +0000

Anon,

It does not. And thank you for asking - and underscoring that I should have stated that in my narrative above. I’ve changed it, accordingly.

Best,

Joe