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


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Follow-on Biologic Drugs and Patent Law: A Potential Disconnect? | Main | USPTO News: e-Commerce Update »

March 25, 2008

Comments

I would point out that it is not only the S.Ct. but also the CAFC that is contributing on the judicial side.

In particular, the CAFC adopts new theories of inequitable conduct every time someone proposes a new one, frequently takes a nonsensical reading of statutes and regulations, and in general seems to be as anti-patent as the Sup.Ct. in many ways.

There have been some favorable developments, such as the heightening of the willful infringement bar, but in general any appeal to the CAFC seems to be a crapshoot, with the outcome tied to which panel of judges is drawn.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2021

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