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


  • "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


« Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

July 19, 2020


Re one assertion above, interfering claims were removed from issued patents by the same PTO personnel by losing PTO interference proceedings for long before 1980. [The then-available civil suit review thereof was rarely successful.]

Re: "Finally, Arthrex argues that the Federal Circuit exceeded its jurisprudential bounds by not leaving it to Congress to amend the statute."
Are they arguing that the Fed. Cir. should have just ignored a Constitutional challenge by a party?

Mr. Morgan,

I find it LESS a matter of "just ignore" and MORE a matter of attempting an action by the wrong branch of the government.

The Judicial Branch does NOT have the authority to directly rewrite the law written by Congress (with the weak excuse of "but we think that they would rewrite the law this way")

Arthrex is appealing the severance provision - they have no dispute with the Federal Circuit finding in their favor on the constitutional issue.

And as for the interference situation, there the rationale was that one of the parties was not entitled to its patent because their inventors were not the first to invent - a question of competence rather than validity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

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