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


« Examination of Myriad-Mayo Guidance Comments -- University Community Joint Comment | Main | Patent Litigation Reform -- Will the Outcome of the Mid-Term Elections Matter, and Is Reform Still Necessary? »

October 29, 2014


"Judge Moore's opinion also relied on deference from the reviewing court to the trial court..."

Not quite. Judge Moore noted (slip op. at 4-5) that the *trial court's* ruling is reviewed de novo. The deference in arbitrary and capricious review is not to the trial court, but to the administrative agency, in this case the PTO.

Thanks for catching that, GrzeszDeL

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