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.

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

« USPTO Launches Ombudsman Pilot Program | Main | GSK Senior Vice President to Start IP Consulting Firm »

April 15, 2010

Comments

Kevin,

As you astutely point out, an extremely valuable case when faced with an absurd application of the BRI doctrine in patent prosecution. I'm glad to see that the Federal Circuit is willing reign in rogue applications of BRI. I've had several instances patent prosecution where the claim language is read completely out of context and inconsistent with how the particular claim term(s) is used and defined in the application.

Amen to the court! I will quote the reality quote as often as I Ican

DS,

Liberally and often, right on!

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2022

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