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


« Court Report | Main | NEJM Perspective Calls for Recalibration of Bayh-Dole Act »

September 09, 2013


Where's the brief? I want to read it!

Dr. Noonan provides an apt caveat of "insofar as the Court continues to believe that the Federal Circuit brings any form of particular expertise to questions of patent law."

Given the seemingly perpetual turf battle, and especially given the massive fail of the en banc "Alice" decision, whether the court created by Congress explicitly to bring sense to patent law still retains such 'expertise' and thus still exists (or should exist) for its intended purpose makes me...

the brief is at:

or you can just google for "BIO, Baxter, amicus"

Meh, so far as your article goes I don't see how Bio established that the full court need get involved. Such a routine matter seems properly relegated to a panel.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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