by Dennis Crouch
Ficep begins its petition for certiorari with a brilliant statement of how its patented steel manufacturing method has won numerous awards and complements for its innovative approach, been copied by competitors, and led to numerous successful sales. Despite these clear indicia of patentability, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims — affirming the lower court’s judgment on appeal.
That the invention was an important real-world manufacturing innovation was, as a factual matter, thoroughly established. The improvement was touted as enabling vastly more efficient and superior manufacture of components – not just by Petitioner’s experts, but also in the defendant’s advertising. There was industry recognition applauding the “innovation.” There was copying by competitors. There was successful litigation and licensing. And there was specific customer demand for the improvement to the manufacturing process. That is, every objective indicium of inventiveness that this Court has identified was present in the technological, traditionally patent-eligible, setting of manufacturing lines.
Ficep petition for certiorari. But, in the Federal Circuit’s view, facts are confined to the obviousness analysis, and Ficep’s patent is invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea. Ficep Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No. 2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2023). The petition goes on to ask three questions:
- Does a claim directed to patent-eligible subject matter (here, manufacturing) nevertheless become ineligible as “abstract” if the process is improved using automation? (and should an “abstract-idea” behind a claim to a patent-eligible process be identified and, if so, how and at what level of abstraction?)
- What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a claim is “inventive,” conferring eligibility under Alice Step 2, including whether objective evidence of inventiveness and technological improvement is relevant?
- Is either what a claim is “directed to” and whether that is abstract, or whether a claim is “inventive” as articulated in Alice step 2, only for a judge to decide as a legal matter or does it include fact issues and, if the latter, are they for a jury?
SCT No. 23-796. This case again highlights the need for clearer guidance from the Supreme Court on when a patent claim directed to an industrial process should be considered an abstract idea and therefore patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For its part, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step test for patent eligibility established in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one, the court determines whether the patent is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept like an abstract idea. If so, then at step two the court searches for an “inventive concept” beyond the ineligible concept.
Here, the Federal Circuit held Ficep’s patent claims to be directed to the abstract idea of “extracting and transferring information from a design file to a manufacturing machine.” The court characterized the focus of the claims as “automating a previously manual process” that a human operator used to perform. Further finding no inventive concept at step two, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims were patent ineligible under § 101.
In its cert petition, Ficep contends that the Federal Circuit misapplied Alice in a way that conflicts with precedent and casts doubt on patents for industrial innovations. Ficep argues that its claims are directed to an eligible manufacturing process under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), which held that a rubber curing method did not become patent ineligible simply because one step used the Arrhenius equation to automate timing of when to open the presses. According to Ficep, the Federal Circuit improperly focused on one aspect of its claims—data extraction and transfer—rather than evaluating the claims as a whole, which require physical manufacture of components. Ficep also presented extensive evidence of its patented system’s superiority over prior manufacturing methods, which it contends demonstrates a technological advance under step two of Alice that the Federal Circuit wrongly dismissed.
Lets look at the claim at issue for just a moment. Claim 7 below claims an “apparatus for automatic manufacture of an object” and requires, among other things, “at least one manufacturing machine [that] manufactures the components” after receiving dimensions from a computing device. Although the court agreed that the claim requires hardware, the court noted that the actual advance here is simply automating the previously manual process of transferring information from a CAD design model to a manufacturing machine. The court found that, in a general sense, that automation process is an abstract idea. And, that the patent claims offer no specific technological improvement that would transform the ineligible idea into a patent eligible. But, the patentee here argues that the closest Supreme Court case on point is not Alice, but rather Diehr, which would favor eligibility.
7. An apparatus for automatic manufacture of an object, comprising:
a computing device adapted to create a design model of an object having multiple individual components, at least two of the individual components defining an intersection at which the two components are in contact with one another;
at least one programmable logic controller in communication with the computing device and with at least one manufacturing machine;
a receiver associated with the programmable logic controller for receiving the design model of the object;
a database unit adapted to store the design model received at the receiver;
a processor which is associated with the programmable logic controller and extracts from the design model a plurality of dimensions of components which define a plurality of components of the object;
wherein the processor identifies a plurality of intersection parameters which define the intersection of the two components;
wherein the processor extracts from the design model the intersection parameters;
a transmitter associated with the processor for transmitting the intersection and machining parameters and the component dimensions from the programmable logic controller to the at least one manufacturing machine; and
wherein the at least one manufacturing machine manufactures the components based at least in part on the transmitted component dimensions and on the transmitted intersection and manufacturing parameters.
In focusing on Diehr, the patentee here is raising a difficult issue that the the Supreme Court’s landmark 1980 decision is effectively dead, even though it has not been rejected or repudiated by the Supreme Court. Rather, it was favorably cited in the Supreme Court’s recent trio of Bilksi, Mayo, and Alice.
Zombie Precedent: Ficep contends that its claims are analogous to the patent-eligible claims in Diamond v. Diehr for a rubber curing method that used the Arrhenius equation to calculate when to automatically open the presses. Ficep argues that like Diehr, its claims as a whole are directed to an eligible manufacturing process—namely manufacturing steel building components—even if one aspect involves automation based on extracting data like intersection parameters. But, the lower courts are not applying Diehr because they see that case as in conflict with the more recent trio. In its petition, Ficep asks the Supreme Court to make a statement on this issue — either confirm or overrule Diehr.
On the inventiveness issue that I started with in this post, the patentee here asks for guidance on Step-2 of Alice/Mayo and for a recognition that technological advance is a fact question for a jury to decide alongside parallel questions in obviousness and anticipation analysis.
= = =
The patentee-petitioner is represented by Matthew Lowrie and his team from Foley & Lardner. Peddinghaus’s responsive brief is due Feb 23, 2024. Their attorneys have not filed an appearance, but I expect they will still be represented by Nathaniel Love and his Sidley Austin team that includes Stephanie Koh and Leif Peterson.
Re unpatentable subject matter, in view of the number of funeral orations on the alleged Death of All Diagnostic Patents, I was surprised to see a law firm article citing examples of diagnostic patents that Have survived a §101 challenge:
“Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (new method); XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, 968 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (improved technique); and Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (dosage adjustment steps not routine or conventional)”
Rapid Litigation Management, LLC?
LOL
Michael, think about what the real issues are with claim scope.
1) The reason to protect against too broad claims is to encourage innovation within the claim scope. This is easily handled by holding that if a non-obvious invention reads within your claims, then your claims are invalid. The reverse doctrine of equivalents is relevant. And there are CAFC cases that hold this but have been ignored.
2) The CAFC has been trying to remove the POSITA (or person skilled in the art) from claim analysis. This is why the CAFC has been trying to get away from scope of enablement because that necessarily includes POSITA.
Claim scope is a very easy issue but the CAFC can’t deal with it directly because their goal is to limit patents as much as possible and not create a consistent body of holdings/opinions. Williamson should be enough to impeach the CAFC judges. Williamson rather than looking at how a person skilled in the art would interpret the claims, the judges decided they would privately decide this based on their desire to limit patents. This line of cases has been expanded and the main thrust is to provide another avenue where any claim can be invalidated based on a judge’s feelings.
Anyway, I could easily write 50 pages about this issue with hundreds of references. And Morris’s claim said “any”. See that was the problem. It would include any non-obvious inventions within the claim scope.
Anyway, I have zero respect for the CAFC or the Supreme Court and fully expect them to continue to intentionally destroy patent law. Imagine being a judge on the CAFC and using your authority to try to limit patents rather than doing you sworn duty to try and apply the laws and try to make a consistent set of holdings so the patent system has predictability. Instead, what they have done is create a system of sovereigns. The judges look at the claim and then use 101, enablement, or another means to invalidate any claim that they don’t feel is valid. Stomach turning.
I will take issue with your 1)
Innovation is available “within” claim scope just as well as anywhere else, and breadth is simply not a legitimate reason to attempt to “foster” such innovation.
ANY [sic] actual invention over the (supported) breadth would OF COURSE meet all of the requirements (novelty, non-obviousness, its own support).
And yes, the “Feel” is one of those simian-in-a-cage-firehosed trainings that the CAFC has ‘learned well’ from the Supreme Court.
anon, the innovation within the claim scope is the whole reason to be thinking about how broad claims are. Without this issue then enablement should be the only issue.
1) The CAFC tries to remove the person of ordinary skill and all the embodiments that are enabled from Phillips.
2) What should be done if an invention reads on the claims but is non-obvious over the invention of the claims.
Keep these in mind.
Your new “1)” (previously 2)) – I have no issues with.
Your new “2)” – I am not understanding what you are trying to ask.
You cannot be both non-obvious to a claim and be read onto that claim.
2) Is easy to understand anon. Something can read on the claims but not be enabled by the specification + a POSITA.
not enabled – not the same as non-obvious, now is it?
Also – no. But perhaps I misunderstood your use of ‘claims,’ as I am reading use of that term for an item that has been granted.
If you are instead using that term to mean mere words of a claim – and that claim is not valid, then – well – ANY type of reason for invalidity may sneak into the discussion.
That cannot be the meaning you intended, could it?
anon, no. They are not the same thing.
Something could not be enabled from say a later arising technology but still be obvious.
You really should figure this out. This used to be the driver for understanding enablement like 20 years ago before the anti-patent judicial activists started using enablement to cancel claims.
Exceedingly unclear Night Writer.
May I suggest that you start over and do not use any non-exact terminology?
anon, wow.
The reason to protect against too broad claims is to encourage innovation within the claim scope
That may be a desirable effect, but the real reason is to not take from the public that which belongs to the public.
Martin, if it was already in the public domain, then the claims would be anticipated.
marty is just grasping for sound bytes against patents.
I may be missing something, but isn’t there is a universe of activity that is obvious, but not anticipated? Don’t those variations and improvements belong to the public and would be foreclosed by overly broad claims being allowed?
Yes, Marty, but if all these things are so obvious, then why weren’t they invented before?
You may laugh but this “argument” was routinely floated here for YEARS.
“then the claims would be anticipated.”
To my point at post 13.1.1.1.1.1 – I took your meaning that the claims at the point of discussion were allowed claims.
I “got” your reply at 13.2.1 to indicate that the claims were in that state – and NOT just per marty’s stab with anticipation, but that the claims also did not suffer invalidity for other reasons.
This wipes out the chatter from marty and Malcolm – perhaps you can continue your point from there.
The underlying reason for shutting out over-broad claims is to keep free for the public all but the scope of protection which is proportionate to the magnitude of the contribution to the progress of useful arts which the inventor has made available to the public in the disclosure in support of the claim accused of being over-broad. Enforceable claims are, by definition, a restraint of free trade and such restraints should be confined to what is justified by promoting the progress, andnot allowed to sprawl wider than that. Categorize it, if you will, as an enablement issue but for me it is not quite the same.
Further, as anon points out, being inventive within the scope of a proportionate claim is no defence to infringement, no reason to find the claim unenforceable or invalid. As the specialist English patent judges have it, being inventive does not excuse robbery.
Good point, another reason to not enforce overbroad claims, besides two possible 112 violations and Alice, is their potential for excessive restraint of trade. That is, denial of customer access to alternative, possibly even better and cheaper, product or method solutions to the same customer problem or demand.
BTW, one Can sometimes be inventive by discovering the importance of a narrow scope that is inside the range scope of someone else’s broad chemical range claims, and get a valid patent on it, if it meets 103 tests.
Sometimes? Happens all the time doesn’t it. Quite right too
NOT ONLY in the example of your second paragraph Paul – but when one considers MOST ANY improvement patent (and especially in burgeoning new areas – i.e., pioneering and ‘white space’ patents).
That is not US law. It is a defense that your invention is nonobvious over the asserted claims.
It surprises me to read that it is a defence to an accusation of infringement of a duly issued patent claim that the accused embodiment is inventive over the disclosure in the asserted patent.
How does that defence work? Is it that if the claim covers subject matter inventive over the patent’s disclosure then the claim cannot be valid? Or is it that the claim has to be construed to exclude such inventive matter?
Either way, it strikes me as nonsense. So what detail of US law am I not appreciating, please.
I think that Night Writer has become a tad discombobulated in his writings here.
I think that I understand what he is aiming for, but one “cannot get there from here.”
Max, we are talking about improvement inventions and their claims in that fall within the generic broad scope of claims of a prior patent. Not prior patents with spec disclosures that render the improvement anticipated under 102, or unobvious under 103 [and 103 prior art does not require its enablement].
Ok. Call if what you want but, Paul I still don’t understand how the non-obviousness of the later improvement or selection can be the basis of a defence to infringement of the basic patent.
We are not talking here about infringement under a DOE are we? There I can imagine that if the accused embodiment is inventive it escapes and if it’s inventive over the prior art then the claim can’t cover it.
Correction. NOT inventive over the prior art is how I wanted to finish.
Re: “how.. the non-obviousness of the later improvement or selection can be the basis of a defense to infringement of the basic patent.”
? It isn’t, if the later improvement is within the scope of a valid claim in the unexpired basic patent.
[I once had to explain to an DOJ hired economist that just getting an improvement patent does not provide a “right to make or sell,” because it does not preclude potential infringement of earlier patents with generic claims.]
This is perhaps the ‘best mode’ for teaching what a patent actually is: a negative right, and NOT a positive one “to make.”
As I have been noting for a VERY long time.
I don’t think Paul was saying anything about positive or negative. I think he is saying bells and whistles don’t change the object. They only dress it up.
Thing is Paul, Night Writer has tossed terms around without being precise as to which claims are in which item.
I think that you and I are on the same page, but it is not clear how Night Writer is using which item under which section of law to have what effect.
Clearly (as I noted at 13.3.1.2), plenty of post initial item may well be worthy of a patent on its own – and such will have zero effect (or collision) with the prior patent – under any of 112, 102, 103 and the like.
Again, scope of enablement. Anything more is not enabled and anything less is taking from the inventor.
The petition brings to mind Dann v Johnston.
What’s good for the Flook is good for the Diehr.
A (as in one, one of many) problems is that Diehr cabined Flook – see Bilski.
To pretend that ALL of these decisions floating around and NOT creating a Gordian Knot is both irresponsible and reprehensible.
So stop pretending that Diehr is floating around. It was a stillborn case that the majority completely failed on, other than the trivial holding nobody questioned.
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 30, 2024 at 7:15 am
Except for the fact (as inconvenient for you as usual), that one of the case you like happens to reinforce (albeit in a completely Gordian Knot manner) that Diehr remains fully in force.
We all KNOW why YOU want to consider it sti11b0rn – but you are just not the one to pick and choose a sliver of a selected sp1n as “permitting” some so-called “tr1v1al holding” to remain.
You have to take ALL of it.
OT, but Waco D.C. Judge Alan Albright has scored another notch in his all-time personal record of venue mandamus reversals with one more. Sending defendant Honeywell off to NC. With the CAFC reportedly finding abuse of discretion and no valid reason for the suit to be conducted out in Waco, West Texas, and applying the most recent 5th Cir. venue decision.
Anybody wondering if Diehr has been overruled needs to first explain what Diehr was about in the first place. The idea that all one needed to do to pass 101 was insert a reference to a “method” or a “composition” in a claim was never taken seriously by anyone except for a few tirelessly aggrieved Internet w a n k e r s. Why was it never taken seriously? Because it’s total nonsense in the context of our patent system which allows applicants to recite the prior art in their claims.
I note a lot of commentary in the thread dedicated or revolving around the debunked nonsense that one can’t “ignore” claim limitation in an eligibility analysis. First off, understanding the relationship between claim elements and the prior art is not “ignoring” the claim elements. It’s the only logical way to determine what was invented when presented with a claim that is mostly a description of the prior art. Second, “new” information is an abstraction and doesn’t become eligible for patent protection merely because it’s placed in a prior art context or used in a prior art method.
This is not complicated. Because it’s plain logic, it also can’t be swept away by screeching and table-pounding and whining about what trendy claims “should be” eligible.
So again for the whiners: if you think Diehr was not overruled (and it certainly was overruled) tell everyone what Diehr stands for and tell everyone how you eliminate claims that protect non-obvious abstractions (like medically relevant facts) in prior art contexts. Good luck. This question has been asked a thousand times over a decade and nobody has an answer (hint: that’s the great thing about logic).
Some lazy person downthread wrote the following: “ I don’t think that there is any invention that can’t be described as some abstract idea together with some combination of known elements”
News flash: not every invention is in the field of information-processing. Try harder.
Also, taking absurdist positions and embarassing yourself with extremist positions is just a tired rhetorical move at this late date. Sure, some cases on the margins will be decided incorrectly or with some controversy. So what? That’s inevitable. It doesn’t mean you get to ignore the fundamental issue of how ANY eligibility test designed to expunge the protection of ineligible abstractions from the system necessarily needs to consider how the claim relates to the prior art.
Your mantra of “relate to the prior art” is an abject
F
A
I
L
at first principles.
This is directly due to the actual law as written.
But go ahead, and you be you, just point out exactly where you ‘read’ your version in the below actual words of Congress:
35 U.S. Code § 101 – Inventions patentable
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Yet another ‘crickets’ from Malcolm.
ooooh – I bet marty is bristling at “the dominance.”
Malcolm,
You are morally and cognitively bankrupt.
Your “question” – no matter how many times asked – is a non-sequitur under the law.
I fully “get” that you do not like the law as actually written by Congress in 1952.
But your ‘version’ is just not up to you to implement, let alone continuously act as if it were implemented, while protesting that ALL OTHERS are nothing but “w a n k e r s.”
You’ve been ploying that same old tired script like forever.
“ Your ‘question’ is a non-sequitur under the law.”
The absurd “holding” in Diehr which was instantly and rightfully ignored until it was totally obviated by subsequent decisions is the “non-sequitur”. A few loudmouth born yesterday know-nothing cranks like you screeching on the Internet is what plainly does not matter. A completely irrational unworkable “law” is not really a “law”. But you’re in the tank with the MAGAts and the worst people on earth so how would you know (and why would you care?)?
You keep on attempting to denigrate something ONLY because it happens to be something you do not like.
There was NO “obviated” as you claim, given that the subsequent holding held ALL of Diehr to STILL be good law.
Notwithstanding your attempts at one-bucketing (which changes patent law not one iota), the facts of the matter is that the Supreme Court jurisprudence CANNOT be squared with itself.
You know this – or at least should know this.
Given that the EPO granted a very similar claim in October 2017, EP-B-2027515, I thought that a look at the EPO prosecution might be worthwhile.
Obviousness objections were trenchantly put, but then overcome by argument. Perhaps it helped, to squeeze a patent out of the EPO, that the applicant was resident in Italy, the priority application was filed in Italy and the PCT at the EPO.
No wonder then, that the patent owner thinks it ought to be given a pass by the courts of the USA. Mind you, there was no opposition filed at the EPO, and less than 20% of EPO-granrted patents survive EPO opposition unscathed. Patent owners should not set too high their expectations that any given presumption of validity will see them through all post-grant challenges to validity.
Yet more of the shilling of EPO Uber Alles.
Please respect the fact that our Sovereign provides BOTH an existence and level of Presumption of Validity.
If you find that you cannot do that, kindly just STFU.
But anon, that’s exactly my point. All jurisdictions that conduct an examination of patentability have a presumption of validity. The interesting question is: In a patent system optimised to promote the progress, how much weight should that presumption carry, when a duly issued patent is litigated?
But you WELL KNOW MaxDrei that the US presumption is not merely a presence of that presumption but a level as well.
You have (in the past) directly whined on that second portion.
Please do not now try to pretend that THAT second portion has no meaning.
Has “no meaning” you write. How useful to the patent owner on this particular occasion was the much-vaunted uniquely high “level” of the US presumption of validity? How much “meaning” did it have for them?
The US-level presumption turned out to be delusional, worse than useless for the patent owner, in that it gave the patent owner false hope that their duly issued patent would stand up to the post-issue attacks on its validity. That’s the “meaning” I take from this case.
Ask i4i.
As for any other case – do not confuse losses on other grounds (just or otherwise) with both the presence and level.
You confuse yourself as to “meaning” doing that.
The Sup. Ct. i4i fact case is actually another good example of prior art [prior actual software] the PTO examiner did not [and probably could not] find, or could not assert. Also, as I recall, it was not about the presumption of validity. It was sustaining the long-existing additional U.S, requirement of “clear and convincing evidence.” That requires “clear and convincing evidence” that the asserted evidence is authenticated as valid evidence. E.g., proof – to that level – that asserted prior art software was actually in public use or on sale. [Not, as in the doctrine-originating old Barbed Wire cases, mere oral testimony of a paid witness that he had seen some barbed wire like that many years earlier.]
Check again on that Paul – the seminal holding was BOTH the existence and LEVEL of presumption of validity.
We pay no attention to Snowflake’s flapping around hey hey look at me. What were the arguments that overcame the obviousness rejection?
What were the arguments, you ask. The usual ones, is my reply. No hint or suggestion in the prior art. That assertion was good enough to bring the EPO Examiner to a decision to let the case through, rather than take the more stressful and time-consuming path of refusing the application.
“ flapping around hey hey look at me.”
Says the guy with the 0bsess10n
But anon, is not Thomas asserting that I’m the Snowflake, not you? I had thought that his remark was aimed at me.
My pal with the shifting historical pseudonyms has an over 98% rate of responses to or about me.
Typically he does not join on new threads, so I can see why you may be confused.
His usual gambit is to pick a random thread and comments about three to five weeks old and post nonsense.
The fun thing is, he was SOOOO B A D at this that I set up an enterprise and I make coin when his posts take on a set of false or duplicative nonsense items.
It’s a great side gig – I get to make fun of his efforts AND make some nice coin on the side.
He doesn’t even respond to 10% of your
G
I
B
B
E
R
I
S
H
and when he does, it’s usually to one of your word salads that kinda might be intelligible (even if invariably wrong) and in so doing, he authors pretty much the only actual lulz to be found around here.
After all, patent law is not exactly a font of comedy.
OTH hand, a sense of humor is one mark of intellect. That’s why you are so tremendously unfunny, provoking the very antipode of amusement.
Usually on these threads you are more than 50% of the total comments. Do some math Billy.
That’s just one of your problems there, marty.
You want lulz instead of understanding.
That you ALSO think so highly of yourself with “mark of intellect” is merely you enjoying the view of your Dunning Kruger height of Mount
S
T
U
P
1
D
(and that you want to jump in with Malcolm and the “B” moniker, well, the company you keep…)
As for your misaimed characteristic (that’s just you being you).
As for the 10% of what I post, goodness, you seem not to be able to “do the math” yourself.
Here are two hints:
1) I would certainly hope that he does not respond to a MAJORITY of my posts, as I engage with people ACROSS the board.
2) The note of 0bsess10n is that he responds to or about ME – and NOT to most anyone else, ACROSS the board.
This is not difficult to grasp. Maybe pull yourself away from your staring at your reflection in that puddle.
IMO, the meaning of life is to get a few laughs. That’s how we defeat nihilism & cold entropy.
I don’t know how one might measure Dunning-Kruger in the context of rando Internet commenting, but in America we usually keep score with money. Or winning at Jeopardy. Certainly not the guild-sense of Section 101 of the patent act requiring much of a brain to master.
I do know that demanding the last word suggests a psychological imbalance. Without doing a dataset on these thousands of threads (which might prove interesting considering the now decades old corpus) I’m pretty sure that you will have the last dated entry nearly every thread you comment on: IOW, nearly every thread.
Hmmmmm
link to learning-mind.com
Your “response” is hilarious on a number of factors there, marty.
That you apparently felt compelled to justify your own feeling of being dominated in discussions on these boards, along with some odd projection of my mental state (that you clearly have no clue to) are among the most immediate and most funny.
Close by is the notion of my “demanding” any type of per se last word.
With my pal Shifty – who DOES play the “last word” game, I have more than once explained that “last” is not even close to being sufficient, as my words satisfy last AND best.
As to most all others that I engage, I am EVER imploring for MORE engagement, as those that do not like what I say simply run away from the points that I present and choose to leave me with that last word, seeing as they do NOT HAVE ANSWERS to those points.
You err as ever.
Notice how Snowflake demonstrated how scary sane he his by not trying to get the last word?
just tell him he’s the champion of the World . please
lol – my pal, maybe you should try to actually read the post, instead of merely hyperventilating on seeing a post from me.
Snowflake doesn’t understand when adults are talking.. Just tell him he’s the King of The World. please.
I am not sure which is funnier.
That my pal Shifty imagines himself to BE in any group of ‘adults”
or
that marty would be a part of any such group in context of a discussion on patent law.
Oh my. Snowflake got the last word again!!