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


« In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | AT&T Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC (PTAB 2016) »

May 23, 2016


So in Boolean notation, the CAFC was saying,

no expectation of success of the combination --> no reason to combine

which is equivalent to

reason to combine --> expectation of success of the combination

[if a --> b is true, then the contrapositive, -b --> -a, is also true]

I thought this was an excellent write-up, especially as a good argument as to why this decision is not necessarily inconsistent with Bilski or KSR. It also tips off future IPR parties as to something else to consider adding to their declarations.
Off topic, but I think many readers would really like to see a "Patent Docs" blog by a real patent damages expert on what the real impact will be of any patent claims ending up after the ongoing interference on CRISPER - widely viewed a multi-billion dollar invention.* In particular, what patent infringement damages recovery, if any, is possible for making, using or selling plants, animals or pharmaceuticals developed by CRISPER gene splicing, vis a vis what damages are recoverable just for using that tool to making the prototypes from which the products are replicated?

*P.S. Noting that in many modern PTAB interferences it is not at all unusual for one or both parties to lose interfering claims as invalid in the interference motions period, before any priority [of invention date] contest.

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