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

« Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Speedtrack Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017) »

January 31, 2017

Comments

"The Federal Circuit had the opportunity to provide guidance on a question now in its twilight: what is the standard for determining who is the true inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)..."

This is only a question "in its twilight" if you think that the standards under pre-AIA 102(f) are meaningfully different than those under AIA 102(b)(2)(C). Given that they are both called "derivations," I expect that the old 102(f) jurisprudence will continue to have a great deal of relevance for the indefinite future. After all, cases decided under the 1952 section 112, third paragraph did not suddenly cease to matter when the means-plus-function provisions were later moved down to 112, sixth paragraph.

GrzeszDel,

Your comment of "After all, cases decided under the 1952 section 112, third paragraph did not suddenly cease to matter when the means-plus-function provisions were later moved down to 112, sixth paragraph."

may cause some confusion, as the use of terms sounding in function did NOT "move down to 112, sixth paragraph.

112 sixth paragraph was an additional and new section dealing with FULLY functional claiming.

Unfortunately, there are far too many patent bloggers only too willing to obfuscate this very real difference.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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