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.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "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_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« USPTO Seeks Public Input on Application Pendency | Main | Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Segin Software, LLC (PTAB 2014) »

July 22, 2014

Comments

The board's decision implies that "the patent holder [had] the increased burden of proving the validity of its own patent". The fact that there are combinations of three CAFC judges who may uphold that burden as the proper one is more than a little worrisome.

Dan,

Isn't that a switch in burden a natural state of the proceedings?

This would appear to be no different than a normal examination in that the examiner has provided a prima facie rejection, and it is up to the applicant to overcome that prima facie rejection.

Not sure why this should cause any worry.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2020

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