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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Koala Genome Sequenced »

August 26, 2018

Comments

I do not recall the case at the top of mind, but was there not an analogous TAX case that removed the "(1) there must be a physical place in the district;" limitation?

If the lower courts are (again) trying to create some distinction for patents that does not exist, how then would such NOT inevitably end up being tossed by the Supreme Court as improper?

(that, is - sadly - if such in any way would benefit a patent holder)

Different point, but of what relevance is "and that all of its inventors reside outside of the U.S."...?

Yet another different point, it appears that NO answer was actually given to the argument of "or if the public directly accesses the services of defendant through a location in the respective forum" - given that for internet based items, the public DIRECTLY ACCESSES in every state. The court here apparently changed the tone of this argument to be NOT the public access angle - that public access angle was written out and exchanged with a Twitter "base of operations" angle.

Another different point: from a non-legal perspective, given all of the other facts about absence of presence in Nevada, what does "VoIP-Pal.com is a Nevada corporation" even mean? SHOULD corporations be allowed to BE incorporated in states in which they will not have any "serviceable" presence? (admittedly, this is more of a corporate law question, as opposed to a patent question)

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 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