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


« Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2016) | Main | Webinar on Leveraging USPTO Examiner Count System »

September 22, 2016


Only one problem. In addition to some correct amino acids, the German priority document disclosed at least one wrong amino acid and in addition, because they could not be determined, hundreds of thousands of possibilities for the remaining amino acids of the N-terminal sequence in the '915. But what is worst, none of the three judges had any significant patent experience, nor any scientific experience necessary for a complicated protein case. This was clear when one of the judges referred to a decision by the CAFC by explaining that the decision said XYZ, while in reality the decision was exactly the opposite of what the judge said. There used to be a time where the CAFC got it right most of the times. Not anymore!

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