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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« USPTO Issues Final Rule in View of Novartis v. Lee | Main | Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. (D. Del. 2015) »

March 17, 2015

Comments

Andrew,

Newman's dissent is spot-on, including that the term "at least one" means "one or more." The majority's reading of the claims, as well as the specification is mind-boggling, as well as giving no deference (in spite of Teva) to the fact findings made at the district court level. As a Chief Judge for the Federal Circuit, Prost doesn't impress me at all.

An interesting "end-around" of the recent Teva decision: simply declare (without more) that the de novo review allowed to the appeals court trumps any and all expert extrinsic evidence, no matter what that evidence concludes.

At what point will the "judges say so and must be right" overpower the will to provide expensive evidence in court cases below?

Does anyone not recognize that this decision provides the ultimate flexibility of ANY CAFC panel to render ANY decision that it wants to on a lower court ruling (at least as far any perceived limitation on treatment of facts per the Teva decision)?

The chess match between the proxy of the Congress designated to bring order and clarity to patent law and the Supreme Court, who wishes to preserve its ultimate power over any law continues.

The second worst part of Rader's retirement was inheriting Prost as CJ. Her performance was abysmal before, and seems to have only gotten worse since last July 1.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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 31