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

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

« The ACLU, Working for the Man | Main | Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) »

March 25, 2015

Comments

"WIPO also noted that while universities and public research organizations are responsible for 26% of pharmaceutical PCT filings, these entities are only responsible for 4.6% of computer technology filings and 2.8% of digital communication filings."

Hence the very real risk (as I continue to point out) that the "divide and conquer" anti-patent strategy must be guarded against - and why my admonition to Paul Cole of "I told you so" rings so loudly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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