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

« Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: IPO | Main | Amgen v. Sandoz Update -- En Banc Rehearing Petitions Filed »

September 09, 2015

Comments

I believe that this case represents the first application of the CAFC's recent en banc opinion in Williamson v. Citrix. If so, then it shows that the new world of 112(f) claims is going to be very different from the one to which we have grown accustomed.

The strange thing to me is that I have not seen any response from the PTO to the new Williamson regime. The very day that Myriad came down, there was a memo to the examiner corps. Same for Alice. By contrast, there has not been any new guidance that I have seen for the examiner corps to interpret claims in view of Williamson, despite the fact that Williamson's change in standards about when a claim invokes 112(f) has HUGE significance in assessing claim scope. It cannot be a good thing that there are probably thousands of claims currently in prosecution that *should* be examined as 112(f) claims, but which are not being examined as such because no one (literally) has gotten the memo about the new standards for when claims invoke 112(f).

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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