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

« Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Fed. Cir. 2011) | Main | Webinar on Prometheus v. Mayo »

December 08, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20154380eeda5970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plaintiffs File Petition for Certiorari in AMP v. USPTO:

Comments

I'll eat my shorts if SCOTUS bites on the second question, and then decides that the other plaintiffs have standing. I can't see this court doing so radical a thing as opening the courts to everyone with a grievance, no matter how remote the harm. The lack of standing of the plaintiffs found to lack standing isn't even a close call.

PubPat should be careful what it wishes for: I think the more likely scenario (but only slightly so) is that SCOTUS will grant cert and then reverse the CAFC on the finding of standing for the one plaintiff, thus throwing out the case without touching the patentability question.

Kevin,

The "surprise" would have been the ACLU NOT filing a petition for cert.

Your characterization of the ACLU's grossly distorted question no. 1 (Are human genes patentable?) is much too kind. I won't be. For asserting such utter nonsense, the "hypocritical, two-faced, and forked-tongue" ACLU should be knocked on their legal keester. Whether SCOTUS will entertain such legal drivel is another matter.

FC,

Edible shorts? How tasty are they? Are they patent-eligible? Just kidding, couldn't resist.

And your points are very well taken. As is often said, "be careful of what you wish for" PubPat (another organizaiton with an "agenda" like the ACLU's).

" so that members of the public affected by a patent but not threatened by suit would have standing."

I think you mean not directly threatened by name and/or letter. So far as I'm aware the story is that the people here denied standing would definitely be sued if they tried to perform the test. Under the instant patent and others.

"PubPat should be careful what it wishes for: I think the more likely scenario (but only slightly so) is that SCOTUS will grant cert and then reverse the CAFC on the finding of standing for the one plaintiff, thus throwing out the case without touching the patentability question."

How is that anymore a loss for the ACLU than what they have now? They're already 100% lost as is. The claims that got invalidated under 101 will not magically allow any of the doctors to do the testing without being sued.

Any word on when the certiorari decision is expected?

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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