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

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Is Venezuela the new Thailand? »

June 24, 2009

Comments

As always J newman playing devil's advocate. She knows good and well what the restrictions are which are at play here. If not for those restrictions we'd have people suing people all over who aren't even anywhere near the other people and who aren't having a very big impact on those other people.

As always, 6 plays the imbecile. 99% of the time, when Judge Newman dissents, it means the majority got it wrong, as is the case here. Oxford owns a US patent. It licenses that patent to US entities, and in so doing benefits from the patent. If Oxford wants to benefit from a US patent, it should be subject to the same kinds of challenges US-based patentees are subject to. Oxford should be subject to DJ jurisdiction in the USA; it should not be able to escape jurisdiction on the grounds that it is a foreign entity.

"it should not be able to escape jurisdiction on the grounds that it is a foreign entity. "

It isn't able to escape on those grounds. It escapes on the grounds that it is not a local entity.

Legitimate.

Riddle me this and riddle me that, but why doesn't the Fed. Circ. start paying more attention to her if she "gets it right" so often? She's had more notable dissents in cases than anyone else in recent years. By a factor of like 10.

I'll tell you why, because she goes out of her way to make the law fit the way she feels it "should" fit rather than how it fits. Her dissents are perfect arguments for a public forum, not a court.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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