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

« Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | Launch of New Diagnostics and Cancer Advocacy Group Announced »

October 31, 2019

Comments

The decision touches upon at least four factors in deciding between inferior and principal officer levels:
1 - Power of Review - prior to binding final decision (seen as indicating principal status)
2 - Supervision (seen as indicating inferior status)
3 - Removal Power (CHANGED to pivot from principal to inferior status)**
4 - Other (the case of Edmond provides: subject to removal by the Attorney General, performed limited duties, had limited jurisdiction, and had a limited tenure.*** The court then adds a "1975 factor," but one has to wonder if that has any force (given the subsequent changes).

What other factors may there be?

** This part of the decision is the most critical - and the most confusing, as it sidesteps the "I can appoint, therefore I can dis-appoint (at any time) argument."

*** interesting that this factor is stated to lean against inferior status, but is not counted in the math (2 to 1) by the court - with their change being a "minimal change" to effect the swing from principal to inferior status.

Aside from the fact that the court has indeed legislated from the bench and rewritten the structural law (even as they claim not to have done so), the math of the given factors (excluding the odd "1975 factor"), yields a change of 1-3 in favor of "inferior" to a TIE of 2-2.

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.)

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