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.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Persion Pharmaceuticals LLC v.  Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | Top Stories of 2019: #11 to #15 »

December 31, 2019


Ask Cleveland Clinic how "beneficial" it was to model a claims DIRECTLY on a USPTO guidance example that was TO BE held eligible.

The Executive Branch can only do so much with the mess created by the Judicial Branch.

It seems like this decision should be named Ex Parte Hannun, not Ex Parte Linden. The cover sheet of the decision identifies the first-named inventor as Hannun. The appeal brief and reply brief are both captioned with Hannun.

The decision is captioned "Ex parte LEE LINDEN, BENJAMIN LEWIS, and ABHEEK ANAND." But looking in Public PAIR for App. No. 14/735,002, there are 11 inventors, none of them Linden, Lewis, or Anand.

What am I missing? My apologies if this is a stupid question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2022

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