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.


  • "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

« The VENUE Act -- A Last-Ditch Attempt at Patent Reform? | Main | Court Report »

March 29, 2016


Re: "The panel also noted in a footnote that it was issuing its decision rather than await the Supreme Court's decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC v. Lee, because TriVascular was arguing for a broader rather than narrower construction."
Thanks for noting that. It is an important point, but ironic, since that was also true for Cuozzo!
However, the important distinction is that here it was the Petitioner, not the patent owner, seeking a broader claim interpretation. The patent owner won this IPR based on a narrow BRI claim scope interpretation.

Thanks, Paul, for reinforcing that message. Agreed it is an important distinction.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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