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

« Court Report | Main | News from Abroad: The Patents Court Considers the Appropriate Scope for Cross-Undertakings »

November 03, 2013

Comments

"In other words, the licensee could "'have its cake and eat it too.'" "

It is their cake, I should think they should be able to eat it and have it. Though not necessarily in that order.

""[a] patent owner would be foolish to agree to a patent-settlement license under this situation.""

Idk about that, you still save a bundle in time and trouble of not having to go to court.

People always want their entitlement from the government to be easy with regards to the patent system. :(

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