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

« Third Follow-on Biologics Bill Introduced in 111th Congress | Main | Anti-Reverse Payment Legislation Introduced in the House »

April 01, 2009

Comments

Kevin,

My comments on the proposed amendment:

Damages: Appears to be acceptable. At least the judge has the flexibility to determine which “methodologies and factors” go into the damage calculation equation.

Willful Infringement Defense: Appears to be acceptable; at least the criteria for the defense are now statutory, not based exclusively on what has been “ever changing” court-based criteria.

3rd Party Statements. I’m not fond of this provision, but the amendments get rid of very concerning language that would have allowed “other evidence” beyond “patents and publications” to be submitted. The USPTO, and especially the examining corps., doesn’t do well with “other evidence” that isn’t a “patent or publication.”

Interlocutory Appeals of Claim Construction. I’m still not fond of this provision for reasons expressed by Chief Judge Michel of the Federal Circuit. While the modified tries to restrict such interlocutory appeals to those “which may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,” that could be potentially said of almost any claim construction decision. I also predict that the Federal Circuit will interpret this “materially advance” provision very restrictively, meaning they’ll likely repeatedly bounce such interlocutory appeals to discourage them, to the extent that the current situation won’t change (trust me, Michel is going to “ride herd” with the other Federal Circuit judges on this provision).

Failure to Disclose Best Mode. Again, this seems to make requiring the “best mode” or at least any incentive to disclose it superfluous. In fact, expect an increase in allegations of “unenforceability” (the statute by its language only explicitly precludes “invalidity” which is or could viewed as different from “unenforceability”) of patents for failure to disclose the “best mode” based on inequitable conduct.

Pilot Program for Certain District Courts. No comments.

That’s it from me on these proposed “modifications.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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