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

« GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) | Main | IPLAC Federal Judicial Panel »

February 27, 2014

Comments

Andrew,

Not surprised by the comments of Breyer, the new "anti-patent" Justice Douglas. I knew Breyer was bad news for patents with his bizarre "raccoon invention" comments during oral argument in KSR International.

So he believes us patent attorneys can get any patent through the USPTO, eh? What rhetorical nonsense. Also, if you want to talk about "objectively baseless," let's try his nonsensical Mayo opinion, in utter conflict with prior precedent, namely Diamond v. Diehr, as well as his derisive comment about the "draftsman's art."

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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