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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Patent Profile: Nventa Biopharmaceuticals Corp. Announces Grant of U.S. Patent 7,262,014 to HPV-Fusion Technology | Main | Tafas v. Dudas; SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Dudas (E.D. Va. 2007) »

October 31, 2007


"It took the PTO a full five hours, until shortly after 5 pm EDT, to remove this post from its site. And it wasn't until a full hour later, shortly after 6 pm EDT, that the PTO posted a notice regarding the injunction."

Yes, but I'm sure as Lauren Wetzler and Brigid Quinn will be able to so eloquently point out to the judge and the media, the notice went up well before the close of business in California, and well before the close of lunch break (even for non-federal workers) in Hawaii.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2023

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