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

« Docs at BIO: Steve Burrill's State of the Biotechnology Industry Report 2010 | Main | Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. Briefing »

May 12, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20133ed8814ea970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc. v. Immutopics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010):

Comments

It's impossible to overstate the value of asking yourself, "How could I design around this claim?" when drafting or amending a claim. It's also impossible, sometimes, to get it right under the constraints of amendment and reexam practice. In this case, "not detecting" was an excessively narrowing limitation -- but the two-page description of the invention provided no more moderate language.

Dear James,

I completely agree with you. Drafting patent applications and claims requires one to walk a fine-line between adequately describing the invention on one hand, including providing the most expansive list of alternatives as the invention will permit in order to avoid both as-of-yet unknown prior art and future design arounds, while on the other hand avoiding excessively long specifications. It is no wonder that application drafting is one of the most challenging aspects of intellectual property law, and possibly fraught with the most danger. As you indicate, "not detecting" was excessively narrowing, but I am not sure from reading the patent that the invention itself would have tolerated a more moderate alternative. Thank you for your comment.

Andrew

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