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.

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

March 14, 2011

Comments

My word, I hope this section of the bill is not signed into law; it just really irks me on so many levels.

Section 2(i)(a) states that, when the appropriate standards are met, the Director may (not "shall") institute a derivation proceeding." This would apper to mean that institution of a derivation proceeding is at the discretion of the Director.

"This would apper to mean that institution of a derivation proceeding is at the discretion of the Director."

In other words it'll probably never happen save in some exceptional cases.

Dear Sean:

Agreed. Director's discretion a big thing in this bill (as it was in the AIPA).

Thanks for the comment

So few comments. Doesn't everybody hate this?

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2016

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