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
Juristant #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

« Europe Bans Stem Cell Patenting | Main | USPTO News: Patent Office to Publish Notice Delaying New Appeals Rules »

December 08, 2008

Comments

Don,

I listened to the mp3 file, and it sounds like Toupin was dunked in a "blood bath." Unless something very odd happens, Cacheris's decision below is going to be affirmed, and these rules are going to be dead. The only question I see is how strong this Federal Circuit panel words its decision.

EG:

While I tend to agree with your assessment, I'm hoping that the panel wasn't merely "testing" the strength of the Office's arguments because it was leaning towards reversing the District Court going into oral argument.

Don

Don,

I agree that sometimes the judges ask the tough questions of the side they support. But given Judge Rader's dialogue with Toupin about the advisability of filing ESDs, and the general tenor and tone of the questions asked by Rader, Prost, and Bryson collectively, I think this panel looked with a very jaundiced eye at the PTO's position. Again, I think the only question is how hard this panel comes down on what the PTO did here.

Don, even your last sentence belies the fact that you expect an affirmance -- you didn't include the Patent Office among the group awaiting the decision!

Thanks for the summary...I had seen reports of the hearing, but no transcript excerpts. Very informative.

Excellent summary, thanks!

Hi Don. I'll be very surprised if the Court reverses Cacheris's decision below.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2019

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