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


« Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Certiorari: Dr. Chakrabarty, A Scientist's View | Main | Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016) -- Question 2 -- PTAB Shenanigans and Reviewability »

June 20, 2016


During prosecution all too often "broadest reasonable interpretation" becomes "broad unreasonable interpretation". Hopefully in IPR a reasonably realistic standard is adopted. The gold standard, in all cases, is of course "correct interpretation".

It is "known" that IPR does not equal "correct interpretation" because the Office DURING prosecution does not take the time to find that exact line and instead pushes to include more so that any "smudging" during litigation will still fall within the "correct" wherever that may actually be.

We are instituting a standard that guarantees that some patent rights will be sacrificed. By design.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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