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


« Do Diagnostic Method Claims Fall under the Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 287(c)? | Main | Conference on International Grace Period and Post-Grant Review »

April 12, 2012


Donald: Can you clarify? Judge Newman's dissent seems to revolve on whether the real-party-in-interest (Life Technologies) is the assignee. Since Life Technologies is not then, case closed.

The district court and majority’s view seems to pivot on the finding that since Invitrogen IP Holdings was given permission by Promega for the assignment and that it is not just a shell company that the motion to compel arbitration is permissible. Is this reasoning because (1) IP Holdings also served Promega; or (2) IP Holdings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Life Technologies; or (3) both?

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this aspect.

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