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


  • "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


« Monsanto Co. v. David (Fed. Cir. 2008) | Main | Amgen Granted Leave to Introduce New Claims of Inequitable Conduct Against ARIAD »

February 07, 2008



As I've suggested, get the popcorn and your favorite malt beverage or wine ready for this session today at the Eastern District of Virginia. And hope and pray that sanity prevails and Cacheris doesn't change his mind that his original concerns about these Rules in the PI opinion were correct. A lot more is at stake today than just the validity of these Rules; I see this decision as telling us whether the APA, RFA and OMB procedures are something that govenmental agencies like the PTO must "toe the line on" or whether the APA, RFA and OMB are just a bunch of meaningless words.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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