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

« Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) | Main | Docs at BIO: Biotech Director at EPO Discusses European Patent Practice »

June 02, 2009

Comments

I suppose he's aware theres not even a duty of disclosure in Europe.

I am not sure that the argument presented by Mr. Brill isn't a little misleading. No one wants liars and cheats to go unpunished. The focus (at least from what I have seen) is on cleaning up the test for IC - stopping the conflating of the two prongs of materiality and intent. Mr. Brill does not seem to acknowledge the abuse of the IC charge tactic and further cloaks the issue in a seeming presumption of guilt.

Just another pointy-headed intellectual opining on things he has zero real world understanding of. Too bad some of these know-nothings actually get an audience.

"I suppose he's aware theres not even a duty of disclosure in Europe. "

In Europe they don't care if you cheat your fellow man.

"Moreover, Mr. Brill's proposed reform would only exacerbate a problem the Federal Circuit recognized more than twenty years ago when it called the frequent practice of pleading inequitable conduct a "plague on the patent system""

That isn't necessarily true Kev. We could tone down the instances where it is proper to plea IC defense and turn up the punishment. In fact, turning up the punishment might cut down on the number of IC defenses being plead because more info would be submitted to the PTO.

I'm sure he is trying to strengthen the patent system to foster innovation. However, I think that the key is in rewarding patent owners by strengthening their rights instead of trying to deter malfeasance.

People misapply general patent concepts all the time. See, generalpatent.com/2009/05/07/response-andy-grove

Dear 6:

Are you saying you want more art to be cited?

Kevin,

Yes, that is, until the art actually comes in and then 6 screams like a baby and begs "make them stop".

See http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/05/bpai-precedential-opinion-on-rejecting-software-means-claims.html

By the by, I have here my second app with 100+ NPL, 500+ overall refs in IDS's over its course.

IDSs. Get them under control.

Posted by: 6 | May 18, 2009 at 08:54 PM

"Are you saying you want more art to be cited?"

If it is good, yes I would. Take those cases that have 500+ references in them. 400+ of those references had nothing to do with any element of any of the claims. Zero. None. Zilcho. 250+ had nothing to do with any element of any of the specification. Now, if they were to send in 500+ good references I would be a happy man. Indeed, amongst the happiest.

Beg them to stop? Lol, funny you should mention that case with 500+ refs. The first one of those I literally asked the attorney on the phone to send me another reference. What happened was a situation where he filed an IDS after my nonfinal which included a chinese OA which took a different view of a reference I had already been considering and as a result got one more of the deps than I had figured the ref did not cover. Of course he squawked when I finaled him and put in the new grounds of rejection on a previously indicated as allowable claim. All I did was point to the IDS and tell him to keep on sending me chinese OAs that show me specifically where all his limitations are found. Unfortunately that was the only OA that he submitted that ever turned out to be useful.

I should note that out of those 500 references he could have submitted about 10 and been far and away in the clear except for the fact that he had to submit most of them because they were cited in related apps. I believe that's part of the rules of submission isn't it? Like if the ref's were cited against related apps then you have to submit them even if you don't feel they're relevant? Idk, maybe I'm wrong and you don't have to submit them. In which case, he certainly should have only submitted like 10.

so what does Brill know about patents anyway? has he ever invented anything, filed an application, prosecuted, appealed, enforced, licensed? Not according to his bio. why would he comment on something he has no experience in?

ah, from the same people that brought us too big to fail buyouts!

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 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