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

« BIO International Convention 2016 Preview | Main | Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Blackberry Corp. (N.D. Tex. 2016) »

June 07, 2016

Comments

"Hans Sauer... pointed out that patentees remain at risk of having their patents invalidated... at times well before there could be any chance for getting a reasonable chance for return on investment."

This seems a strange observation. If the claim is unpatentable, then the patentee does not *deserve* a ROI. I am very distressed at the thought of genuinely patentable claims being invalidated (even if the invalidation were only to come after the patentee had already partially or even fully recouped the reasonable ROI), but I am not unsettled in the least if unpatentable claims are axed before the point of ROI.

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