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


« Lex Machina Looks at ANDA Cases | Main | Webinar on Interplay between District Court Litigation and PTAB Post-Grant Proceedings »

November 06, 2014


"Peace for our time" did not last too long for Mr. Chamberlain either.


What you've said about the Ultramercial remand just reaffirms that the Alice test is utterly broken. The Royal Nine should be verbally scourged for creating this nonsensical test that conflates both 101 and 103.

If, as it appears, 103 is the key issue in dispute along with proper claim interpretation in cases like this, defense clients should start asking why IPR is not a far cheaper, faster and more effective way to deal with such claims?


My understanding is that patent litigation in courts is way down in the second half of 2014, while IPR and CBM procedures in the PTO are on the rise.


The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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