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

« Guest Post -- Antibody-Drug Conjugates: Further Patents on Linkers | Main | Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

March 18, 2019

Comments

...pong...

When companies fail to be able to innovate, some choose to litigate. What a shame that Symantec chooses such an approach with frivolous law suits, wasting money and taking away from share holder value!!

...and sure enough, the whipsawing continues with a quick "ping" at:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2223.Opinion.3-20-2019.pdf

So, EP, you are saying that the patent holder is the one "failing to innovate"...?

What flavor is your Kool-Aid?

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