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

« Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) | Main | Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

May 20, 2019

Comments

Pong.

This was a good analysis. The recent article by Stephen McBride and Michael D. West "The Intersection Of Octane Fitness And Alice" also notes a “double whammy” danger for suits like this. The suing patent owner can lose on Alice-101 AND be made to pay the defendants attorney fees! [Unless they had a viable counter-argument to the Alice 101 motion.]
[Fortunately most suits disposed of on that basis are disposed of early on, before either party has been subjected to a lot of discovery or trial preparation costs running up recoverable attorney fees.]

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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