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

« Institut Pasteur v. Focarino (Fed. Cir. 2013) | Main | More Q&A from Webinar on Top Patent Law Stories of 2013 »

January 22, 2014

Comments

Andrew,

Your criticism of Breyer's reasoning in section B of this opinion is absolutely on target. To use my late patent attorney father's expression, Breyer's posited basis for ignoring legitimate concerns raised by IPO "doesn't hold soap."

Frankly, and as was clearly shown by his reasoning in Mayo where he completely brushed aside the Government's argument that 101 issues should be dealt with last, not first, Breyer is uninterested in the "realities" of the situation, but only in making life as difficult as possible for the patentee. Medimmune started this awful process in "disrupting" the balance in how deals are struck between the licensee and the patent licensor. Medtronic has now shifted that balance even further in favor of licensees running to court for DJ actions whenever they feel it's to their advantage. Once more, the shadow of Lear v. Adkins is raising its ugly head.

The Court runs amuck.

Skeptical,

"Amuck" with a vengeance and anti-patent fervor that is ghastly to behold.

I'm confused. If I'm a licensee and file a DJ action, the patentee must prove I infringe in order to successfully defend. But since there's a license in place, I *can't* infringe, or at least the patentee can't claim any damages. So basically this becomes similar to ANDA litigation: the court decides if my product would infringe but for the license that insulates me. So as long as I continue to pay royalties, I'm good. Is that correct?

Seems like this will push patentee licensors into demanding more at the front end of the license, if they bother to license at all.

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