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
Juristat #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

« Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (2019) | Main | Even More Ill-Conceived Remedies from Congress Regarding Prescription Drug Costs »

June 11, 2019

Comments

Two questions:

1. I can accept that a claim might be old or obvious, or a product might be old or obvious, but struggle with the idea of assessing whether an "equivalent" is old or obvious. Perhaps that is why, for ensnarement under US law, one has to go through the process of trying to draft a notional claim. I do not see Judge Hacon suggesting such a process. Is it then superfluous to the infringement by equivalent enquiry?

2. Looking at the 3 x 3 Table, why do we need the first two lines (A-A-A and B-B-B)? What do they contribute?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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