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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. -- Briefing Schedule Update | Main | Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2010) »

August 09, 2010

Comments

This case is already shaping up to be one of the most controversial actions in patent litigation today -- in more ways than one. Its importance is virtually a guarantee that almost every single aspect will be scrutinized, contested, and debated. One hopes that this will translate into a very fair and well-considered opinion by whichever panel (SCOTUS) issues the final decision. But simultaneously one can also anticipate that all of this is going to take quite a while.
http://www.aminn.org/webcast-aipr-patent-reform-presentation-us-patent-and-trademark-office

"(i.e., an unwillingness to consider the case with an open mind)."

What about a willingness to consider the case as if the law does not apply to it? Hmmm?

Dear 6:

Since I was in the room for at least one of these meetings, let me tell you how I interpreted the Chief Judge's comments. What I heard him say was:

"Using Section 101 the way the ACLU did in the Myriad case has no judicial standard that can be applied, or is argued to be applied. The decision they advocate rests not on patent law, but on politics, and as a judge I can't make these decisions based on politics. I need legal principles that I can apply, and the ACLU's arguments are not based on legal principles, at least not patent law principles."

Now, I want to emphasize that I am not speaking for the Chief Judge, but I find it ironic that the ACLU is crying foul in a case where they have advocated (at least in the court of public opinion) that this case is about who "owns" your DNA, since they well know that the 13th Amendment precludes any such ownership.

Thanks for the comment.

Kevin,

But your take is just not as interesting. Should we be bothered with the truth when it is wrapped in such plain paper?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2017

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