decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Judge Rich's account of the 'Three Doors' | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thank you for that contribution
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT

That was very readable and illuminating. I found the Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp case very interesting. "The issue in Deepsouth was whether petitioner infringed by selling the unassembled parts of machines embodying patented combinations to foreign buyers who assembled and used them abroad." He was not found to infringe.

Kinda makes me think about patented software. Sitting on a disk on a shelf it does nothing. It doesn't implement its patented invention until it is run on a computer. So perhaps if I make software that embodies the same invention, there is no infringement if it is not run on a computer in a jurisdiction where the patent rules, even if I made that software in the same jurisdiction where the patent was obtained. Beyond that, perhaps even if it is run on computers within the jurisdiction where the patent was obtained, perhaps I am still not liable for patent infringement if I don't run it on my computer? Only the person running the software may be liable?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

'In Re Bergy/Chakrabarty', Judge Rich's account of the 'Three Doors'
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 10:48 AM EDT
The biggest constraint to section 101 analysis is the need to consider the claim
as a whole without looking at which elements are new and nonobvious. This is a
consequence of this three doors doctrine.

This aspect of the doctrine has been weakened by Mayo. The Supreme Court has
accepted that there could be overlap between section 101 and 102 analysis
because we need to know what are the conventional elements of the claim to make
the kind of analysis required by Mayo.

There is a notable exception which is the printed matter doctrine. The printed
matter has nopatentable weight. It cannot distinguish over the prior art under
most circumstances. There are exceptions to this exception. Collins's article
quoted in the response explains the details.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Judge Rich's account of the 'Three Doors'
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 17 2013 @ 06:21 PM EDT
Anatomy of the CAFC

> we find in Flook an unfortunate and apparently unconscious,
> though clear, commingling of distinct statutory provisions
> which are conceptually unrelated

> The transition made in 1952 was with respect to the old term
> “invention,” imputing patentability, which term was replaced
> by a new statutory provision, § 103, requiring nonobviousness,

Thus Congress being confused heaps confusion on the Courts
and us. With procedural requirements to satisfy it's easy to
overlook the eligibility of subject matter.

The Dictionary Wars

I prefer to follow Alice [Through the Looking Glass, not
C.L.S. v.] and hold that an invention is, a priori, novel
and non-obvious. In the 1952 Act Congress was not only
bold and exemplary in expanding that tautology, they also
exposed a Hydra. Three doors now where one had sufficed.

Alice's prime specification was that an invention must be useful.
The PAEs know this too. I'm not aware of any suits for infringement
of patents on Laser Light Cat Exercisers or Double Comb Overs.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )