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

« All Our Patents Still Belong to Us | Main | BIO International Convention 2014 Preview »

June 16, 2014

Comments

Times have changed.
Some of us who were around in 1993 when the patent in question was written will likely recall being told at very expensive seminars taught by some of the best in the business that M+F claims were the broadest way to claim something.
Times have changed.

The specification did disclose a two-step algorithm. The fatal mistake was not making an argument for this algorithm in the lower court.

It may not have been a mistake - the patentee might have decided that claims limited to that algorithm would not have been infringed, and that they had to argue for a broader scope.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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