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

« Patent Term Adjustment: 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(b)'s Three-Month Provision | Main | Amicus Briefs in Ariad v. Eli Lilly: Professor Christopher Holman »

November 18, 2009

Comments

Don,

Chisum is probably right that we need to pay a bit more attention to SCOTUS precedent, especially the recent precedent. But the trouble is that what SCOTUS has recently said is so murky and muddled that, until the Federal Circuit "refines" it, we've got no clue where the law is going. KSR International is an awful example of this problem. SCOTUS has no more clarified the standard for patentability under 35 USC 103 in KSR International than Graham did 40 years ago.

At this point, I'm hopeful, based on the Bilski oral argument, that SCOTUS won't do anything particularly "harmful" regarding "patent-eligible" subject matter under 35 USC 101. But I still "shudder" somewhat at how certain members of SCOTUS conflate (and confuse) "patent-eligible" with "patentable" under 35 USC 102/103. What would really make me "gasp" is if they took an "inequitable conduct" case. No telling what SCOTUS would do to make the standard for "inequitable conduct" unfathomable for us "mere mortal" patent attorneys.

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