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


  • "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


« New USPTO Fee-Setting Bill Introduced in House | Main | U.S. Trade Representative Releases Special 301 Report on Global IPR »

May 18, 2010



Oh yeah, I now remember the SCOTUS version of this case. Scalia, who I'm normally not fond of, had some pretty choice words for SCOTUS' interpretation of 28 USC 1447: "Over the years, the Court has replaced the statute’s clear bar on appellate review with a hodgepodge of jurisdictional rules that have no evident basis even in common sense." He even referred to "this mess" as being "entirely of our own making." (Bully for Scalia admitting that SCOTUS does make mistakes.)

Jurisdictional "fights" like this one which bounce the litigants back and forth between various courts without resolution don't make our system of justice look very good (or competent). And when large sums of money are spent (and some would say wasted) on something other than the merits of the suit, our judicial system particularly appears incapable of rendering true justice. Just my 2 cents.

Cases where an invention has been stolen in this way have come up on more than one occasion, and they rarely turn out well for the inventor. The inventor can sue under 35 USC 256, but only after the patent issues, and that action risks having the patent declared invalid for inequitable conduct. The only alternative I'm aware of is quite expensive: file an application, copy the claims, and have an interference declared.

Although it's not material to patentability per se, I wonder if the attorney prosecuting the application has a duty to disclose to the PTO the fact that someone not named on the application is claiming to be an inventor. If not, perhaps the PTO should establish such a duty.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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