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

« Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | Webinar on Drafting Patent Applications for AI Systems »

April 11, 2019

Comments

An important initiative deserving of great support.

Feel free to add the other blade of the Kavanaugh Scissors (the steps for the Court to reverse itself, as explicated in the oral arguments of California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt).

Seriously? Suggesting as being effective for a Fed. Cir. rehearing grant the filing of additional briefs to the Fed. Cir. attacking several Sup. Ct. decisions as unconstitutional?

Mr. Morgan,

What exactly are you taking issue with? That some would seek to engage on a thoughtful questioning of Constitutional issues?

Coming from you - knowing full well how you have sought to dismiss ANY dialogue PREMATURELY that touches on Constitutional issues, I find your admonition of "Seriously?" to be the OPPOSITE of "seriously."

Maybe instead of ducking conversations (as is your typical MO), you had engaged in conversations and explored (much less made a point) of purported weaknesses, you might - just might - have had a leg to stand on here.

As it is, you do not, and thus, your own post cannot be taken seriously.

Stop trying to be a naysayer please. SOME actually want to engage on issues that rise to that important level of "constitutionality."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

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