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


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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Phytelligence, Inc. v. Washington State University (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

August 30, 2020

Comments

This is interesting on procedural grounds.

It may well be even more interesting on comity grounds. While facially adhering to a normal Appeal/District relationship, the three judges of the appeal level well knew that in this instance, the district level was one of their own.

One would think that Judge Dyk would -- by now -- NOT have claim construction regimens that are voided by his peers.

Is the end of "Disclosure Revolution" cited by Joseph Root based in Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc (US 1996) ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2021

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