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


« News from Abroad: Lilly Successfully Defends Zyprexa Compound Patent In Australia | Main | Loyola Conference on Patents, Innovation & Freedom to Use Ideas »

March 28, 2013



SCOTUS might do well to read this paper carefully in the Watson Pharma reverse payment case. But then again, SCOTUS tends to "beat to its drummer" no matter what others tell otherwise in situations involving. Witness Mayo where Breyer ignored the USSG's argument that you might be better off to look at 35 USC 102, 103 and 112 first before looking at 35 USC 101.


Oops, there should be an "it" inserted after "others tell" in the second sentence and "patents" at the end of that sentence.

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