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

« PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part IV | Main | Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer S.A.S. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

March 21, 2017

Comments

With respect to SCOTUS’ decision in SCA Hygiene Products, consider that oral argument in Impression Products v. Lexmark occurred yesterday relating to patent exhaustion/first sale doctrine. No mention was made by the advocates or the Justices of SCA Hygiene Products during the oral argument. That’s very odd, given that there is also a parallel copyright case (Kirtsaeng) on copyright exhaustion/first sale doctrine, although in the copyright, the first sale doctrine is statutory whereas there is no corresponding patent statute. It’ll be interesting as to whether SCOTUS also sees this parallel between SCA Hygiene Products and Impression Products.

As far a Breyer's dissent goes, he remains consistent-he's yet to see a patent he likes. Breyer is the most virulently anti-patent of the SCOTUS Justices, on par with William O. Douglas. Breyer’s Mayo v. Prometheus opinion remains an outrage for not only screwing up the law on patent-eligibility, but for also factually misstating that a “law of nature” was involved, given that the drug whose metabolites were being monitored didn’t exist in “nature.” Go figure.

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