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.


  • "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.


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


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


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.


The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2017

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