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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Supreme Court Preview -- Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. »

December 04, 2016

Comments

I would be delighted to see the CAFC reconsider the flaws of Achates. I would note, however, that there is a growing body of precedent, by now, that is built on Achates (e.g. think of the way that the panel in Husky v Athena used Achates to prevent the application of the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel to IPRs). If the CAFC does reconsider Achates en banc, they are going to have their work cut out for them teasing apart the various threads now woven into the law that spin out from Achates.

When you mention flaws, GrzeszDel, are you talking about the holding or the dicta in Achates?

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2018

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