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

« USPTO Women's Entrepreneurship Symposium | Main | U.S. v. Arthrex: Is Historical Practice of the USPTO Relevant? »

March 02, 2021

Comments

Thank you for such a thorough summary of the oral arguments in Arthrex. One thing is clear, another Sup. Ct. rejection of the unrealistic dream that they are going to throw out the entire IPR system.

Mr. Morgan,

Another snipe from the sidelines from you?

While I am not surprised, you may do 'readers' some small favor by actually providing a tidbit of the actual rationales discussed (not by you, since you do not actually bother to engage in real discussions of merit) as to why an issue of severeability (or a choice by Congress NOT to have such) would impact the issue here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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