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

« USPTO Issues Final Rule to Implement Patent Law Treaty -- Changes Take Effect December 18 | Main | News from Abroad: Are Multiple SPCs per Patent Allowed? »

December 17, 2013

Comments

Judge Newman should be given veto power over all CAFC decisions.

This is exactly why I leave the issue of prior to the experts. It is so complex and usually requires a prior art expert witness in a legal case.

This is a shamefully wrong decision. I agree with Judge Newman all the way down the line.

I just don't understand how these presumably intelligent, knowledgeable jurists can continue to allow themselves to be misled so profoundly by the party with the better "spin doctor." Are there no checks and balances in place to prevent this sort of thing?

This decision goes against fundamental, time-honored precepts we, as chemical patent lawyers, have come to rely on as "settled law" in advising our clients. As I read this case, it reinforces my emerging belief that this Court is an overall negative factor in development of our Patent Law.

Decisions like this are so discouraging. They enfeeble our reasonable expectation that intrinsically sensible, settled precedent can be relied upon in assessing how future cases are likely to be judged. Should we start advising our clients that the whole darn thing is just a crap shoot?

Mark

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