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

« Patent Trolls Beware -- Supreme Court Issues Decisions in Octane Fitness and Highmark | Main | Software Sector Leads First Quarter Venture Funding to Thirteen Year High; Biotech Sector Finishes Second (Again) »

April 29, 2014

Comments

Andrew,

Nice article. As I commented on Gene Quinn's article on these cases on IPWatchdog, I’m less concerned that SCOTUS did in the Brooks Furniture standard as 35 USC 285 cuts both ways: the “exceptional” conduct of infringers, not just patentees is subject to this new standard set forth in Octane Fitness and Highmark. And it’s more often infringers that have to worry about 35 USC 285. Also, and as you suggest in your companion post, I hope it’s pointed out to the Leahy’s and the Goodlatte’s in Congress that, with this new Octane Fitness/Highmark standard, the need for some of the nonsense in HR. 3309 and S. 1720 has greatly diminished.

EG, Do you really think that the aim in HR 3309 or S 1720 is this same "cuts both ways" result?

Me, I remain...

Skeptical,

No, but at least this new Octane Fitness/Highmark standard puts both sides (accused infringer and patentee) on the same footing, and exposes HR. 3309 and S. 1720 for what they are: grossly slanted measures against the patentee only.

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