Joining the growing chorus of judicial discontent, Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk laid into a lower in the Mayer v. Bodum patent case, labeling the case “an example of what is wrong with our patent system.”
Increasingly judges ruling on patent cases are finding protracted and ruinously expensive patent litigation to be wasteful and contrary to both the interests of the inventorship community and the underlying purpose of the patent system.
In the Bodum case, Dyk was particularly frustrated with not only the incredible expense of the litigation but with the fact that underlying patent had been able to survive a challenge on the basis of obviousness up until that point where the case reached him.
While the protection of intellectual property is undoubtedly of significant economic value to our company, the growing proliferation of patents which fun afoul of being clearly obvious (and thus invalid and, in fact, not eligible for patent in the first place) is a growing burden on our innovation economy. While there are numerous flaws in our current patent system, one of the most detrimental is the apparent inability to reliably and consistently weed out properly patentable IP from IP that is not properly patentable (whether for obviousness or other reasons). If we are to continue to grow our economy on the backs of innovation and technological advancement, these are the types of roadblocks that we must remove!