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

« Federal Circuit Issues Decision in AMP v. USPTO | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

July 29, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20154341ac9f5970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Standing in AMP v. USPTO: The Plot Thickens:

Comments

Kevin:

I suggest a new title for this blog entry: "Standing in AMP v. USPTO: The Plot Thickens, Although it Doesn't Matter Whether the Plot is Thick or Thin Because the Supreme Court is Going to Kill Biomarker Correlation Claims in Prometheus v. Mayo Anyway."

What do you think, too long?

Lulz lulz lulz lulz lulz.

"While the issue [of standing] would appear to be mooted by the Court's decision, insofar as a factual dispute exists, it may be addressed if either party petitions for rehearing en banc."

Understatement of the year, Kevin. You know both sides ARE going to petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and that at least part of Myriad's brief is going to be devoted to the standing question. If the panel chooses to rehear and deny standing, the rest of what it said becomes irrelevant. And it lowers the chance that SCOTUS will take up the case.

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