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

« Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | USPTO Initiates Post-Prosecution Pilot Program »

July 12, 2016

Comments

I see that the three judges from the merits panel are part of the unanimous decision here (as was also the case with the unanimous per curiam order granting en banc rehearing and vacating the panel decision). It's always refreshing when judges are willing to admit they made a mistake.

Nice summary and explanation, thank you!

I think this case was decided properly and will not likely see cert.

This is good news. It's heartening to see the CAFC make such a clear and common sense decision in an area that was heading squarely for la la land. Thank you for such a clear explanation.

Now they have recovered their mojo maybe we can expect to see some common sense on 101

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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