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: UK Court Seek Clarification of the Term "Human Embryo" | Main | News from Abroad: UK Court of Appeal Considers Sufficiency »

June 10, 2013


I like S. 1013. I like it a lot. There are parts (like the indirect infringement part) that need some fixing. But the core tenants of it are great:

1. More stringent pleading requirements
2. Identification of all parties of interest
3. Limits on discovery until after claim construction (!)
4. Fee shifting (shall award fees unless “position or conduct of the non-prevailing party were objectively reasonably and substantially justified”)

Huzzah! Congress speaketh soon!!!???!@?!?!

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