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 | Patenting Necessary for Continued Innovation in Biotech/Pharma Industries, Academics Conclude »

February 11, 2014

Comments

Is this the same type of 'pragmatic catastrophe' that the animal rights followers suffered in Lujan?

I am not seeing a palpable distinction. The "You may participate, but only until you lose" argument falls flat because the venue in which you are participating is changing, and each venue has well-understood rules, and it is those rules that are being applied. This is just another bite at the apple of Congress made everyone an interested party line of thought - the same line of thought that failed in Lujan.

Excellent post--thank you. I am confused, though, about how CW was able to participate in an inter partes review in the first place if the government now considers it to lack standing. Can inter partes reviews be initiated by anyone regardless of whether they might infringe the patent, or did the PTO make a mistake by allowing CW to initiate one? If CW was properly allowed to initiate the inter partes review, I kind of agree with them that it doesn't really make sense to not allow them to appeal a decision. On the other hand, if CW wins this argument, then inter partes review becomes an end run around standing, doesn't it? Odd as it seems, I think the government has to win here or there will probably be a flood of inter partes reviews by public interest groups that would otherwise not have standing--frankly, a huge mess.

Bob,

To alleviate your confusion regarding "I am confused, though, about how CW was able to participate in an inter partes review in the first place if the government now considers it to lack standing." please remember that an adjudication before an Article I court (that is, a court in an executive branch agency setting) has a different set of rules from an adjudication before and Article III court (that is, a court fully in the judicial branch).

What this comes done simply enough is the recognition that two different forums simply have different rules.

Bob,

The difference is that different rules apply to Article I and Article III courts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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