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


« Broadsoft, Inc. v. Callwave Communications, LLC (D. Del. 2017) | Main | Guest Post -- Patent Exhaustion and Pharmaceuticals »

October 09, 2017


"which he considered a feature and not a limitation that Stepan could rely upon to establish nonobviousness"

A feature that would have had to have been met (no doubt) in order to prove infringement, is receiving a judicial twist such that it is desired to be considered not a claim element...?

Where does this "call it a feature" power come from? Is this a (malignant) growth of the 101 Gist power?

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