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

« In re McAward (PTAB 2017) | Main | Webinar on Safeguarding University IP When Structuring Deals in China »

August 31, 2017

Comments

I love, love, love your open. I will now follow this case, all because you mentioned Brazil.

I do hope the en banc Federal Circuit overturns the panel decision-giving the Federal government attorneys fees as "costs" for simply appealing is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Not to comment on the specific "who pays for what" issue, but that movie was not a great analogy. A 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil action only occurs when the applicant voluntarily chooses to file such a suit before going to the Fed. Cir. on an appeal. In most cases to introduce evidence the applicant could have introduced ex parte with declarations and exhibits in the application prosecution, or in a continuation, that is now instead subject to cross-examination and rebuttal in a 145 action. Few 145 actions change the outcome.

Paul: no analogy is perfect, of course, but unless the PTO goes the way of the FDA (which would be bad for innovation, no?) it seems unfair to make an applicant pay government attorneys' fees. Just my opinion

Dealing a with a case right now in which the examiner doesn't understand the difference between a Fe (II) salt and a Fe (III) salt - the sort of thing a high school chemistry student is expected to know. It's bad enough that we need to spend thousands of dollars educating the examiner because the PTO doesn't know how to hire technically competent people. But to then add the PTO's attorney fees should this thing eventually go to court via 145? Are you kidding me?

Dr. Noonan,

Is this a question of "fairness" or is this a question of the law?

As I am sure that you are aware, the two are not always the same.

As to whether THIS court has the authority to rewrite the law, solely as a matter of "fairness,"...

well, call me:

Well, Skep, as I understand it the issue is whether the law is interpreted to include attorneys fees (which is a new interpretation). There was no hint here of anything other than an applicant availing herself of the opportunity to have review of the administrative agency's decision.Insofar as policy goes fairness should be a part of that analysis (at least insofar as inventors that are not big companies are concerned).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

November 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