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


« Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Technology LLC (Fed. Cir. 2012) | Main | News from Abroad: EPO Fee Increases from 1 April 2012 »

February 29, 2012


Thanks for reporting this three-run homer for Monsanto. Would have been a grand slam but there were no sanctions against PubPat or its attorney.


Ravicher and PubPat are becoming an eye sore in our area of law. As BLTC suggested, a dose of Rule 11 sanctions would help to curb some nonsense from these characters.


Do you have a link to a copy of this decision?

Chris Holman commented on this case at the time it was filed. The link is:


I guess everyone else in the GM seed business wakes up in the morning and thinks, "Thank God for Monsanto!"

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 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