Patent Goulash For Engineers

INTRODUCTION: I wrote an article in October 2019 for mechanical engineers (and others) warning that the Section 101 morass, i.e., Patent Goulash, was not limited to computer software business methods or medical diagnostic procedures.  The long twisted arm of unpatentable “natural law” and “abstract ideas” was extending to patent applications for improved mechanical structures.  See Mechanical Engineering and…

Read More →

“Groundbreaking” But Not Patentable?

INTRODUCTION: It is clear abstract ideas are not patentable. However the topic is much more complex. I have written a number of articles regarding the fog shrouded abyss related to patenting computer business methods and medical diagnostic procedures.  The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (commonly known as the “Federal Circuit”) continue to…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Procedures: Can the Court Make Up Its Mind?

Introduction I have written on this topic before.  See my past article Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures.  But the question remains.  The court can not make up its mind.  What is an invention that is eligible for patenting? Specifically, in regard to novel medical diagnostic techniques, the court continues to stumble over the issue of whether the technique is merely an…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Devices

Introduction This article is meant to be read in conjunction with my article Patentability Swamp.  In this prior article, I have discussed the newest USPTO Guidelines (October 17, 2019) pertaining to patenting matters that may incorporate patent ineligible material under 35 USC Section 101, i.e., natural law, natural products, natural phenomena or abstract ideas.  I have discussed the…

Read More →

Patentability Swamp

Introduction I have recently posted a blog of mechanical device patents becoming ensnared in the patentability swamp.  The swamp is the ineligibility of patenting “natural laws”, “natural phenomena” and “abstract ideas”.  This has followed the adverse rulings for patenting medical procedures and business methods. There has been another shift in the ground underlying this swamp.  Further guidance was issued from the USPTO…

Read More →

Mechanical Engineering Patents and Validity Goulash

Introduction If you thought that issues of natural law and abstract ideas were invalidating only medical device and treatment patents, think again.  The fog of natural law/natural phenomena/abstract ideas is descending upon “nuts and bolts” mechanical engineering.  It is no longer safe to pursue patent protection for vibration dampened drive shafts without encountering “validity goulash”.   Discussion Again…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Diagnostic Procedures

Introduction This article is a follow on to my July 19, 2019 post entitled Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures.  It may be useful to review this earlier blog post.  What prompts this new post is the pending petition of Athena Diagnostics Inc. regarding the invalidation of its patent for detecting a neurological disorder (Myasthenia gravis).  I discussed this case, Athena…

Read More →

Known Technology is Not Abstract Rev. 2

Introduction On August 26, 2019 I posted an article regarding “Known Technology Is Not Abstract”.  In that post I complained of the Federal Circuit determining a patent for an automatic garage door opener as being invalid since it utilized wireless technology and wireless technology was deemed to be a well understood technology and therefore an abstract…

Read More →

Known Technology is not Abstract

Introduction Abstract ideas are not patentable.  This is simple statement has caused continued confusion and frustration.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a garage door opening device that differs from the prior art only in that it utilizes “off the self” wireless communicating technology is an abstract idea.  Use of known technical devices…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures

Introduction There is a great deal of valuable intellectual property associated with medical technology.  However the patent landscape is, in my opinion, unclear and unsettled.  Diagnostic procedures that utilize human biologic functions are denied patent protect because the procedures rely on “natural law”. I have tried to outline the problem using the actual wording of disputed patents…

Read More →