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


« Broad Institute Patents Remain Revoked in Europe | Main | Broad Files Opposition to CVC's Motion No. 1 for Priority Benefit »

January 29, 2020


A notable absence of the frequent patent attorney arguments that even issues of this technical complexity and importance should only be decided by jurors with no technical or patent law education, rather than PTO APJs as here.

Mr. Morgan,

It is a bit of a misnomer (and obfuscation) to impute that an item to be decided by jurors should not be so based on the notion that jurors lack technical or patent law education.

We have a jury system.

That system is there for well known and well established reasons.

Instead of such muckery, let's recognize those reasons. This type of 'sniping from the sidelines' from you just is not helpful.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2023

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