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


« The Relevance of Patent Exhaustion in the Myriad Genetics Case | Main | Biotech/Pharma Docket »

December 15, 2010


"To the extent that this Court does anything other than send a strong message of support for broad Bergy-based standards of patent-eligibility, the message would be transmitted around the world that the United States itself is not living up to the promise of TRIPS Article 27 to provide "patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to . . . the field of technology[.]" TRIPS Agreement, art. 27(1)."

Good. I hope they cancel that thing. Fast. And stop making ridiculous IP agreements with other countries when we can't even get our lawl settled here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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