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
Juristant #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 Holds Forum on Interim Guidance -- Part I | Main | Rep. Goodlatte Introduces His Patent Reform Bill (Again) »

February 04, 2015

Comments

Andrew,

I side completely with Newman's dissent. Dyk's majority opinion is an utter travesty, including suggesting that the patentee should use mandamus to challenge an egregious violation of the IPR statutes. How can Dyk with a straight face suggest that even an egregious violation by the PTAB of the IPR statutes is unreviewable as somehow comporting with "due process" when it takes a patentee's statutorily recognized "property"? I suspect this panel decision will go to the en banc Federal Circuit, and I do hope that a majority realize the "due process" implications of Dyk's opinion, as well as Newman's correct interpretation of the proper claim construction standard for IPR.

Andrew: Do you think the Chief Judge has found her "hitman" in Judge Dyk? Have you noticed that Judge Dyk seems to get the cases where a decision (written by him, joined frequently by a judge on senior status) further weakens patent protection? Seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

While I share EG's sentiments, I am less sanguine about both the chances of this case being taken up en banc and the likelihood of it being overturned in the course of such review. I am curious to see what happens when the same BRI question arises in a case with a different panel: in principle the later panel is supposed to follow the ruling of the first panel that dealt with a matter of first impression. But we've seen enough CAFC cases where that didn't happen (or where later panels even strayed from earlier *en banc* decisions) that it's not a foregone conclusion that this panel's view of BRI in IPR will be followed by later panels.

Andrew,

Note David Boundy's excellent article just posted on the administrative law/procedure problems with In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/02/administrative-attorneys-technologies.html . It reaffirms that I’m not alone in wondering how Dyk’s majority opinion can possibly comport with due process and the APA.

I note in the comments there the "skepticism" being afforded the earned respect and the great power/great responsibility duality that comes with wearing those black robes.

Officers of the court have a duty to remind the court when they stray. All too often I see a very much "look the other way because I like the result" attitude expressed. It is a sickness in our ranks that philosophy is pursued at the expense of law - and this sickness needs to be treated no matter whom has become infected.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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