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

« Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) | Main | Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

May 29, 2018

Comments

"Once again, Judge Newman appears to make the better argument on this issue."

An understatement, Kevin.

Judge Newman's characterization of the majority's holding as "appellate surprise" is an even greater understatement. It should "judicial ambush".

I look forward to the en banc petition. Hopefully recourse to a cert request won't be necessary.

"Once again, Judge Newman appears to make the better argument on this issue."

Hey Kevin,

Not a surprise, she usually does, truly the "conscience" of the Federal Circuit. It will be a very sad day when she is no longer sitting on the Federal Circuit bench.

“I look forward to the en banc petition. Hopefully recourse to a cert request won't be necessary.”

From your lips to God’s own ears. Judge Newman has essentially drafted the petition for reconsideration for XY. Hopefully the rest of the court can see how far this panel has run off the rails on this one point. I agree that certiorari should not be necessary. This is the sort of mistake that the CAFC can correct by itself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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