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


« Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2015) | Main | Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: 23 Law Professors »

September 02, 2015


"[P]erhaps [Congress'] Members could set aside the partisanship that has produced legislative gridlock and correct those provisions of the law that have caused the current situation and its attendant confusion about what Congress intended in passing the Act."

Ah, that was a good laugh. Seriously, though, from your lips to God's own ears.

When and if this inspired moment of bipartisan concern for the well being of the biosimilar regulatory process takes hold, they might also consider using the opportunity to address 35 USC §§ 101 (in view of Mayo/Myriad/Alice), 271 (in view of Akamai), and 314 (in view of Cuozzo Speed Tech).

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