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


« AIA Overview: Changes to Provisions Relating to Third Party Submissions of Prior Art | Main | USPTO and EPO Launch Patent Classification Website »

October 25, 2011



Nothing new here from the FTC. Simply a manifestation of the same FTC dogma on patents: patents are inherently "bad," no matter what the shape, size, or subject matter they cover.

While I have few objections to the FTC's position on reverse payment patent litigation settlements, I'm not entirely convinced that appealing to members of Congress is necessarily the FTC's most effective option ... considering how amenable our legislature generally is to the influence of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry and other areas of commerce. After all, industry pressure appears to have been the main factor in shaping the terms of the patent reform bill that Congress recently passed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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