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

« In re Droge (Fed. Cir. 2012) | Main | PhRMA Files Amicus Brief in K-Dur Case »

September 25, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017c3222fceb970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plaintiffs (Again) File Certiorari Petition in Myriad Case:

Comments

Kevin,

The first question presented in the cert petition (Are human genes patentable?) doesn't even come close to presenting the issue correctly. The second question presented is utterly disingenuous as the upholding of Claim 20 is completely reconcilable with Mayo Collaborative Services. And good luck on the third question presented (standing). As expected, more rhetorical nonsense from the ACLU and PubPat.

Kevin,

I really loved this statement at page 8 of the cert petition:

"Through its combined patents, Myriad claims
ownership of the BRCA1/2 genes of every person in the United States."

To use the words of Judge Newman, that statement doesn't even pass the "chuckle test."

EG: "As expected, more rhetorical nonsense from the ACLU and PubPat."

Agreed, but at least 4 justices agreed that the last round of rhetorical nonsense from PUBPAT deserved their consideration...

It appears to be a given that the Petition will be granted.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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