Invalidating a will
Earlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a major decision interpreting provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA), specifically the AIA on-sale bar provisions.
In , the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Mayer and O’Malley determined: “after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in the terms of sale” for the sale to be invalidating.
Democrats actually thought he was too conservative.
Indeed, he claims to personally believe the flag doesn’t violate the First Amendment but then goes out of his way to use mental gymnastics to say he is bound by precedent.
Before proceeding to the merits of what was contained in the floor statements, the Federal Circuit pointed out the obvious – that floor statements are not typically reliable indicators of Congressional intent, citing the U. may be deemed patent-defeating prior art.” The Court also pointed to an excerpt from then Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who explained in his opinion the AIA precluded the extreme results that occur from “commercialization that merely consists of a secret sale or offer for sale.” Judge Dyk explained the Court declined the invitation to decide this matter more broadly than necessary, and would limit its ruling to the issue of sales, saying nothing about public use which is not before the panel at this time with these facts.
“The floor statements do not identify any cases that would be overturned by the amendments,” Dyke wrote.
“We next address whether the AIA changed the meaning of the on-sale bar under 35 U. Teva and various amici argued that the AIA did not change the law with respect to the meaning of the term “on sale,” while Helsinn and the government argued that the AIA did change the law, which no longer encompasses secret sales and requires that a sale make the invention available to the public in order to trigger application of the AIA on-sale bar.
While they give lip service to the Constitution and then join along and even expand unconstitutional precedent that violates our foundation, Judge Moore will actually live by his oath of office.Yet, he was the canary in the coal mine, as he warned that if we are to give a lowly federal district judge the ability to rule that our history, tradition, natural law, and Constitution are “unconstitutional,” there is nothing a judge can’t do (and no purpose to federalism and the separation of powers).Once again, a federal judge in Pennsylvania proves this warning to be ever prescient as he “struck down” the Lehigh County flag, which contains a Christian cross.It has a pictorial presentation of Jesus as the lamb of God with references to John the Baptist in Latin: Obviously, anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the First Amendment knows that the Establishment Clause was designed to do the exact opposite.In fact, it was to prevent even the , much less the unelected federal judiciary running rogue shot over states.
In so reaching this ruling the Federal Circuit has largely done away with the belief that the AIA created some kind of safe harbor for sales that did not disclose the details of the claimed invention.