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

« Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) | Main | Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc. (D. Del. 2015) »

December 08, 2015

Comments

Hey Andrew,

Newman is right: granted motions to amend are rarer than diamonds. That a majority of the Federal Circuit panel approved of such restrictions on such motions to amend, while at the same time also believing that BRI applies and that the burden is on the patentee to justify the propriety of such amendments defies logic, fairness, and most importantly "due process." If that's how IPRs work, IPRs can't possibly comply "due process."

It doesn't matter what happens in prosecution anymore, because at the end of the day PTAB is just going to kill the patent anyway using the twin pillars of "BRI" and "no amendments". That being the case, let's spare the applicants the time and expense of of this faux prosecution in the USA, and just go with a registration system.

Dan,

While there are wrinkles that need to be addressed, the call for a much less expensive system really should be on the table.

Currently, the USPTO budget - paid for entirely by the innovators seeking patents - runs to the BILLION (yes, with a "B") dollars annually.

A registration system could realistically be run at a rate of 2% of that on an ongoing basis.

That would mean that 98% of the current funds propping up the system could be plowed back into the innovation activities.

98%.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

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