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.

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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008) | Main | EPO Search Fee Increase »

April 08, 2008

Comments

If the applicants are really the best source of knowledge in interpreting prior art, and the AQS is going to be new fodder for the inequitable conduct mill, perhaps we should just go all the way and allow applicants to decide patentability and allowance questions, and do away with the USPTO entirely. Patent proecution will really occur in courts under the guise of inequitable conduct allegations ... now, do we have enough federal district court judges to replace all the examiners?

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

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