Today the Supreme Court decided not to hear LabCorp v metabolite case after all.
Good thing!
Patent law is confused enough already without good judges weighing on scientific issues.
A question that always have a game to me is why courts and legislators is so quick and eager to protect copyright holders, while the patents and the unfortunates who owns them, get turned down the right and left.
My admittedly untried and no doubt partisan theory is that the majority of judges and lawyers identify much more with "authors" and "artists" than with the humble of engineers, researchers and other techno-geeks who often not be able to get dates in the high school (including me, sadly). It is only natural, suppose they still see the average book, games, Brittany Spears CD or whatever, as a larger and more deserving creative results than, say, the log-periodic antenna.
Disagreement in the metabolite shows once again that most judges have absolutely no idea what technology is actually how fundamental science fact numbers in or how technical advancements in battery cell technology is, in fact. Once again we hear the tired platitudes that Einstein's famous equation, and Newton's law of gravity of the infringement cannot be patented. But what these declarations even mean? What, precisely, would mean "patent" the law of Gravity? It would prohibit the people to do sell or use it? (And, if so, how one goes about doing the import, sale or offer for sale a scientific law?) Someone please explain.
Of course, it is, of course, only when someone makes practical use of an idea, such as Einstein's matter/energy equivalence, as patentable subject matter--at least as defined in section 101--first come into existence. When this happens, why should not these specific applications and use be patentable, provided they are new, useful and unobvious?
With regard to the facts of the metabolite and the dissenting justices unclear thinking, we are lucky, the Court has chosen not to bless us with their wisdom, in this case. Fortunately, the majority simply said that certiorari original enforcement order was "improvidently granted." Disagreement, however, chosen to demonstrate why federal judges are recruited rarely as researchers the resignation of the test bench.
In the metabolite, inventors discovered a correlation between increased levels of total homocysteine (whatever that is) and missing cobolamin or folate in warm-blooded animals (regardless of them are--chemicals, not animals). Subject of a claim reciterer "method for the detection of a deficiency or cobalamin folate in warm-blooded animals" by looking for "an elevated level of total homocysteine." The layman's terms, this is similar to assess a person's health by checking his temperature--an old technique, which is based on natural phenomenon is the correlation between increased temperature and infection. Unless I'm missing something, it is the fundamental concept in the metabolite analogue and is based on the newly discovered the correlation between homocysteine and cobalamin or folate.
According to disagreement, this correlation simply a "natural phenomenon". It can, I will accept. What I do not accept their conclusion that is senseless claimed specific method based on this phenomenon is "cannot be patented the" subject-matter of the dispute, because it uses this "natural phenomenon".
Huh?
Almost every invention-user-and, in fact, depending on the nature and the other--"natural phenomena." love if they don't, their benefits would be reproducible by other, and no need for a patent would exist in the first instance. What is the point of patenting something if the results are not predictable and repeatable?
And check out other reason disagreement gives to refuse a patent: "the reason for exclusion is that sometimes, too much patent protection can inhibit, rather than ' shall encourage the development of science and useful Arts. '" Has it? Your crime, Mr. Inventor, is that you invented "too much." So far, the most patents refused because the inventor invented a little. But now the patents should also be denied if the inventor invents "too much." Hmmmm. guess we better add Goldilocks engineering staff, so she can tell us, what is the "just right." (And while we're on the subject of adventure, the Court of Justice seem to believe that there is no such thing as "too much" protection when it comes to a know now geriatric cartoon rodent. But will leave it to another to see through to a person.)
Judges often have a romantic view of the "inventors" (preferably gale them!) are some sort of creative geniuses--artists, if you want to--while the real world, engineers and scientists, which makes the actual invent is just an overgrown tangle grease monkeys. You will see this in the "flash of creative genius" "inventive fire," "synergy" and other nonsense, of the Supreme Court has from time to time come to justify refusing a true inventor hans properly reward. (This is also why as a plaintiff Attorney you are wise to describe your client to the jury, as the "inventor" or "Entrepreneur" rather than just an engineer, scientist, or other such "boring" type. Jurors, tend to share this bias also.)
While I would like to thank the dissent for entertaining reading, welcome the full Court of Justice did not get their hands on this matter. I have quite enough to do keeping with imaginary claim limits disappear precedents and other trivial problems emerging in modern patent practice without also that worry about bull-in-China-shop inventors who boorishly invent "too much" and pigishly contributes more than they have every right to human knowledge and our understanding of the natural world.
沒有留言:
張貼留言