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

« Court Report -- Part III | Main | USPTO AIA Roadshow »

September 11, 2014

Comments

Re: "the reason that only one other PGR has been filed to date is because this type of proceeding only applies to [the relatively few new patents so far issued under the AIA]" That is temporarily one reason for several years, but FAR from the only reason. First, PGR can only be used for the first 9 months after a patent issues, and only a small percentage of patents are ever asserted against anyone that rapidly. No commerical infringers may even exist that early. Secondly, the estoppel for making any PGR challege wipes out raising almost any invalidity defense against that patent on any grounds later. Why anyone not in desperate straits against a newly issued patent would want to throw a PGR "hail Mary"? PGRs were seriously missrepresented as cure-alls in the AIA drafting negotiations.

Isn't the inventor supposed to decide what they regard as the invention? Since when does a challenger get to decide that details which are enabled by the specification must necessarily be present in the claims? Isn't the written description requirement being reversed here? Aren't we supposed to describe everything we claim, as opposed to including in claim 1 everything we describe?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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