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

« Update from China: Supplemental Evidence in Pharmaceutical Patent Applications | Main | News from Abroad: A Strict Approach to Priority Entitlement by the UK Court of Appeal »

February 19, 2014

Comments

Don't you mean section 284 is the relevant section in the Highmark cases?

Jim,

Thank you for your comment. The Highmark case is about how much discretion a district court’s determination is entitled to regarding attorney’s fee awards under 35 U.S.C.§ 285. Of course, willfulness, under § 284, can impact that determination. Therefore, some of the briefs discussed this section. But the issue that will be considered by the Court relates to § 285. Thanks again for the comment.

Andrew

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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