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


« IPO and BIO Submit Comments on USPTO Reexamination Voucher Proposal | Main | USPTO Launches Twitter Account »

November 23, 2010


I can’t believe I’m still hearing about Apple & Motorola patent lawsuits! They’re essentially the same products, of course they are going to have similarities. They need a refresher of the definition of Patent Infringement (http://www.aminn.org/patent-litigation). I can only imagine the amount of head-aches Apple’s attorneys have when it comes to this stuff.

I support the FTC in their crusade.

For better or worse, the FTC's lack of success on this issue appears to result at least partly from the long-standing presumption of validity attaching to patents in the U.S. Of course, if Microsoft somehow wins its appeal on the i4i ruling and thereby helps weaken this presumption, then the FTC may have a better chance in its war against pay-for-delay.

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