E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« In re Fisher: EST Utility Redux | Main | Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005) »

October 27, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e200e5503da89c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ex parte Bandman (B.P.A.I. 2004):

Comments

I have a question. Suppose that claims 3 and 12 were allowed as written.

Now if I change a fewer than 5% of amino acids or nucleotides in the sequence and want to use them in research/pharmaceutical drug, Do I have to go around cheking every natural malate dehydrogenase to see if I may be infringing these claims? Or for that matter, does the Patentee have to show that a natural variant of my sequnce exists to prove infringement?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31