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


« Photocure ASA v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

June 16, 2010



I waiting for the "verbal bloodshed" to occur in due course when the Federal Circuit hears this case.

The Fed Circuit will probably overturn the decision in no uncertain terms. However, it will just be a way station on the way to the Supreme Court. Who knows what the technological illiterates there will do with this case? I'm afraid that they will buy into the ACLU's bogus women's health arguments and agree with the District Court.

"will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit, and perhaps ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court."

If they do go to the USSC can you get me a seat Kev? I totally do not want to have to show up at midnight the night before the case to get a seat. Although, if it comes to that at least I'll be ready this time. I'll totally get your lunch if you can get me a seat.

In the mean time, I'll see you boys at the CAFC. I will have to keep my eye open for when the panel hearing is going to happen, those things always slip by me.

"It will be interesting to see if amici include universities, whose patent portfolios will be the most harmed by affirmance of the gene patenting ban promulgated by Judge Sweet."

It will probably read a little something like this:

Qqq qqqqq qq qqqqqqq qqq qqqqqqqqq q q qq. Q qqqqq qq qqq q qqqqqqq qqqq.


Qqqqq qq q qqqqq.



I sure hope they don't buy into the ACLU's bogus arguments, as well as Judge Sweet's nonsensical opinion.

What I wonder is whether there will be any government amicus filers; that's pretty important, as Uncle Sam holds way more influence over the courts than do any other amici. In any case, there seems to be little question that this case will be the subject of patent litigation for years to come.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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 31