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


« Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

June 27, 2017


Would not dissatisfied applicants usually be better off filing a continuation application with supporting declarations [rather than an expensive civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, in which their expert witnesses can be cross-examined] before going the Fed. Cir. anyway?

Usually, yes. But it depends on the posture of the case -- if the problem isn't a dearth of evidence on the applicant's behalf, but instead the Office's refusal to accept or rely on that evidence, there would be a benefit to being able to require the Office to provide evidence and being able to cross-examine the Office's experts. That being said, the costs (included the newly clarified additional costs) of a § 145 action almost always will outweigh the benefits.

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