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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | The VENUE Act -- A Last-Ditch Attempt at Patent Reform? »

March 27, 2016

Comments

Kevin, "not quite a unicorn" is not quite right. As already shown in one published study I saw, the scary alleged average IPR "claim kill rate" so frequently bandied about is actually very much lower than that for the very much fewer IPRs that have been brought against pharmaceutical patents. [There are several good reasons for that.]

Well, Paul, I was referring to 1) getting the Board to decide claims were non obvious; 2) and having the CAFC affirm: after 3) getting the IPR instituted in the first place. What do your statistics say about that?

I'd be interested to know, although I get your point - I'd rather have a biotech/pharma patent in this regard than a computer or business method patent.

Thanks for the comment.

Kevin,

Another reason this case is pretty close to a unicorn is that the Federal Circuit held that a combination of references was based on improper hindsight.

Since the KSR decision, it is a rare Federal Circuit or PTAB decision that even addresses the issue of "hindsight" much less uses "improper hindsight" as a reason for determining that a combination of references is improper.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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