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


  • "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


« Webinar on China and the Changing Global Patent System | Main | Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

March 22, 2020


You make it sound like we should be sympathetic to FB. I think that a party that's served with a complaint that alleges infringement of potentially hundreds of patent claims deserves to know, in a timely fashion, which of those claims the plaintiff is asserting. On the other hand, I really don't give a @#$% about FB, which has more money than it knows what to do with and more information about individuals than anyone should be allowed amass. If any defendant could have availed itself of the IPR process for hundreds of claims, it's FB. Instead of doing so at the outset, it decided to hedge its bets and game the system. And it got what it deserved vis-a-vis joinder. Now it will have to defend against those un-joined claims in court. Big deal.

None of this is to say the plaintiff is necessarily a saint. But I don't think the result here is a bad one for patent law (nor, apparently, does the author, so I don't know he began with "bad cases make bad law"). Yes, FB deserved to have its motion for dismissal decided in a more timely fashion, but it also has the wherewithal to weather this temporary setback in its march for global hegemony.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

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.


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.)

June 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