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
Juristant #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

« In re Schweickert (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

January 30, 2017

Comments

Excellent result - and quite surprising coming from Judges Prost and Dyk.

Hey Atari Man,

Not as surprising as you might think as Prost authored the 10-0 en banc decision (Dyk joined that decision) in the Limelight remand from SCOTUS on 271(a) applying to multi-actor (joint) infringement. I've got to hand it to the Federal Circuit on this particular question-they've essentially dared SCOTUS to overturn their Limelight remand ruling, and so far, Our Judicial Mount Olympus continues to "blink."

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2019

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