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


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO and Korean IP Office to Exapnd Patent Prosecution Highway Agreement | Main | Patent Profile: Hana Biosciences Receives Notice of Allowance for Use of Menadione to Treat EGFR Inhibitor-Associated Skin Rash »

May 09, 2010


Thanks for listing the Pieczenik complaint, but you didn't mention the three best parts thereof: (1) he alleges violation of the RICO statute by the defendants, asserting that they colluded to deny him royalties; (2) he twice states that Bayer has patents that are invalid under 102(e) by virtue of his own '363 patent; and (3) he's acting pro se. (I suppose if you had mentioned the first two there wouldn't have been need to mentinon the latter.) At least he didn't ask for a declaration of invalidity of those Bayer patents. It should be entertaining to see how he attempts to prove collusion. If the case actually gets to discovery.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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