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

« St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

October 25, 2020

Comments

It was noted by an EPO practitioner in a Patently-O comment that the subject broad vibration dampening claims are not getting allowed in the EPO equivalent application either. [Obviously, not due to 101.]

Paul:

As you might imagine, we have no dog in this fight, and the claims may suffer any number of patentability issues. Eligibility shouldn't be one of them.

Any idea what this issue is in the EU?

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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