Both the District Court and the en banc panel of the CAFC came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court, it was only the initial appeal to a smaller CAFC panel that came to a different conclusion.
So its really hard to paint this Supreme Court decision as essential because the "lower courts" are not getting things right, since both the trial court and the last panel before the Supreme Court to hear the case got it right (insofar as the Supreme Court decision defines "right".)
Comments
This basically seems to be a verbatim repeat of Bilski v. Kappos.
And we shall continue to get repeats until someone actually forces the lower courts to get their shit together or go home.
Both the District Court and the en banc panel of the CAFC came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court, it was only the initial appeal to a smaller CAFC panel that came to a different conclusion.
So its really hard to paint this Supreme Court decision as essential because the "lower courts" are not getting things right, since both the trial court and the last panel before the Supreme Court to hear the case got it right (insofar as the Supreme Court decision defines "right".)