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

« Uncertain Future for Waxman Follow-on Biologics Bill | Main | Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) »

June 09, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201156ff57ce6970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gene Patenting Debate Continues:

Comments

You know what would be funny? What if the PTO just stopped issuing them and short circuited the case?

6: You may have received a favorable decision in Tafas v. Doll, but it wasn't that favorable.

Gene, that seems a bit off topic and I don't disagree with what you say. Although, I do agree with the CAFC in that decision that what they said was the correct interpretation, admin law principles and result.

So, did you banzor me from your little neck of the woods or am I just having technical trouble posting there (both from home and work?)

Btw, I got a real kick out of your statement about "large companies infringing reasonably anticipated claims" in your thread where you were so outragged about some lucky person getting an OA in 6 mo. BTW, my AU has a time to first action avg of 18 mo, are all those thousands of actions going out unfair to your 3 year waiting app too?

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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