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.

Become a Fan

« Court Report | Main | Ariosa v. Sequenom -- Ariosa's Responsive Brief »

November 10, 2014

Comments

There is a strong public interest that claims of unjustified scope should be held invalid and uncertainty for the public should be removed. There is an equally strong argument that subject matter disclosed in a patent specification which is truly novel and inventive and which has been disclosed to the standards required in 35 USC 112 should be enforceable.

For those reasons patentees have been permitted to amend their claims in the UK for well over a century, and in the EPO from its inception. Holding claims invalid and then denying the opportunity to make validating amendments is a denial of justice.

The well-known buzz-word broadest reasonable interpretation all to frequently degenerates into broadest unreasonable interpretation. There is a middle path which must surely be preferable: correct interpretation according to the file record and the evidence. Application of broadest reasonable interpretation accompanied by denial of amendment are logically inconsistent positions, and an inability to perceive that fact indicates the "normalization of deviance" (Janet Vaughn, the Challenger Disaster) to which large bureaucratic organizations are unfortunately prone.

This decision will be pattern-setting and will have world-wide implications. Hopefully the Federal Circuit will appreciate the point and hand down a constructive decision.

Would now be a good time to remind everyone that the construction of the AIA was deliberately chosen to NOT have a "survival clause?"

If one part of the AIA falls, the entire AIA falls.

Someone had studied the Korean Chaebol effect...

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2016

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