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

« PTAB Life Sciences Report | Main | More Aqua Products Fallout -- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge »

January 16, 2018

Comments

A rare decision in which Judge Newman's arguments do not ring true.

Coming from Europe, and inured to European patent law, I would say that Pauline Newman sees it right.

Funny, isn't it. The USA sees only the rights of individuals. Asia sees only the rights of tribes. Only Europe has a judicious balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of tribes.

Does Pauline Newman hail from Europe?

MaxDrei,

Your statement only shows your lack of appreciation for US law.

Pauline Newman is simply NOT correct here.

As I note, this is indeed a rare event for a judge who so often ends up being correct and being in the minority on CAFC panel decisions.

(and this has nothing at all to do with any type of "judicious balance" my friend - this has everything to do with properly applying the governing rule of law)

The first step towards giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to review its precedent is a 2:1 split decision.

Newman might indeed be playing fast and loose with the governing law, but if she's wrong, and the logic of the governing law is unassailable, her dissent won't change it.

Time will tell.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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