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

« USPTO Celebrates One-Year Anniversary of e-Office Action | Main | Senate Removes Pay-For-Delay Provision from Appropriations Bill »

July 28, 2010

Comments

Kevin,

Nice summary of the Abbott brief.

That the Federal Circuit "went off the rails" on the standard for "materiality" became glaringly evident in the 2006 Digital Control v. Charles Machine Works case which noted there were at least 4-5 different "standards" for "materiality" including the PTO's various incantations of Rule 56. If you've got at least 4-5 different standards to choose from, how can you expect any consistency in rulings on "materiality?"

I remain convinced that IC should be dumped as an invalidity/unenforceability defense. Instead, as suggested by the Abbott brief, let's require real "fraud on the PTO" like was established in the trilogy of SCOTUS cases noted at the beginning of your article, and this "plague" will just about disappear (and rightly so).

Good morning Kevin:
Could we have a link to the brief itself, please?

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