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

« GOP Legislators Write in Opposition to Proposed TRIPS Waiver | Main | Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) »

May 19, 2021

Comments

While write-ups on this blog tend to be long (seemingly — sometimes — as long as the decisions being covered), they also tend to be amazingly accurate and clear, tracking the multiple issues and elucidating them well.

Nice job!

Thanks skeptical (but we really do check and they are always shorter, but maybe not by much, than the opinion, or at least they don't contain some of the necessary detail the Court thinks it must include in the opinion; see, coming up, the Pacific Bioscience case, where we don't burden the reader with the ins and outs of nanopore nucleic acid sequencing, as fascinating as that can be).

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