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: Further Referral by UK Patents Court to CJEU on Interpretation of SPC Regulation for Combination Products | Main | Webinar on AIA's Expanded Prior Use Defense »

November 07, 2013



Good summary and comments on the oral argument in this case. In my opinion, and as you suggest, Medimmune is an awful decision (Scalia gets a D- in my book for those IP decisions he's written) which completely distorts the licensing process in favor of the licensee/prospective licensee, and makes any licensing negotiation problematical as the licensee/prospective licensee can simply "run to court" or threaten same, putting the licensor/prospective licensor in a difficult negotiating position. To now say that the patentee must also have the "burden of persuasion" in the DJ action just compounds this unbalanced licensing situation that Medimmune has inflicted on us.

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