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

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

« Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) »

August 11, 2010

Comments

Thankfully, these new requirements appear to at least partially address the concerns of some that expansion of the Plan would allow larger entities to improperly "game" the patent application system in their favor, to the detriment of small entities and independent inventors.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-gets-results-its-clients

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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