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 | Main | Examination of Myriad-Mayo Guidance Comments -- University Community Joint Comment »

October 27, 2014

Comments

Can there be any doubt as to the "politicalness" of ALL of this "patent reform" propaganda?

Will there be any objective voices that are actually paid attention to?

Sadly, I remain...

For a somewhat more balanced perspective on this issue, see "Should PTAB Apply Broadest Reasonable Construction In IPR?"
Law360, New York (September 22, 2014,

Yes, IPRs make claim amendments difficult, and frequently find original claims invalid. But what evidence is there from IPR decisions to date that merely changing IPR claim interpretation from BRC to PTAB interpretations of the notoriously widely varying claim breadth interpretations between different Fed. Cir. panels would make a real difference to IPR decisions? The PTAB already does pay attention to noted actual prosecution history estoppel. The main difference in IPR outcomes vs D.C. jury decisions is the vastly better prior art searchs done by the IPR petitioners being sued and PTAB APJ patent attorneys being able properly read claims against cited prior art unlike many untrained jury members. Not even to mention that merely changing from BRC would still leave IPRs with no presumption of validity or requirement for clear and convincing evidence, and In re Zurko for appeals.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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