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

« U.S. Supreme Court on Eligibility: Nothing to See Here, Move Along | Main | Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

January 14, 2020

Comments

As I wrote a few weeks ago in response to the Persion decision:

There's some sense to the concept of "inherent anticipation", but "inherent obviousness" is a logical impossibility. When are these judges going to learn to admit they're wrong and stop perpetuating inanities just because some of their colleagues got it wrong in the past?

I'm not surprised to see this from Judges Dyk and Lourie, but it's disappointing to see Judge Moore go along with this balderdash.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2020

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