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

« Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. (D. Del. 2016) | Main | Webinar on Overcoming 101 Rejections »

February 04, 2016

Comments

"The opinion (or rather the description of the Board's procedures and the history of how the Board arrived at its decision) once again illustrates the flaws in the IPR system established under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2012."

Hey Kevin,

How correct you are in that statement. As you also astutely point out, it's bizarre that the patent owner has the burden in the IPR to demonstrate patentability of any proposed amended claim in such proceedings. IPRs are nowhere close to being "fair and balanced" with respect to the patent owner.

"refuse to permit patentees to amend claims"

Patentees can amend claims if the amendments are supported by the spec and shown to be non-obvious.

But as everyone knows, of course, the claims that are being hammered in IPRs are typically the broadest claims, i.e., "the most valuable claims" if we set aside their invalidity.

"cold comfort for Illumina and all the other patentees"

Boo hoo. Let's all shed a tear for Illumina.


MM, aka host-of-sockpuppets-while-complaining-most-loudly-about-sockpuppets,

Your statement of "Patentees can amend claims if the amendments are supported by the spec and shown to be non-obvious." is simply not true and is the point of the issue in this conversation.

You have attempted to move the goalposts and employ an (empty) emotional taunt. Please respect this forum and its attempts to NOT be a "Patently-O"

Thanks

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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