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


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Faux-Populist Patent Fantasies from The New York Times »

April 17, 2022


I saw the article as well and would have simply dismissed the piece as very badly misguided MISinformation.

As noted, many of the thrusts have been around for more than a decade, and have simply not aged well.

Most of the information in this editorial is just ridiculous. They obviously don't understand patent law and are assuming that patents are just "bad."

I worry that this is a set-up for the new Director to take a turn to the far left like other Biden nominees. It would be easy for the director using IPRs and 101 to devastate the patent system.

And Congress is so crippled and corrupt that I can't believe they will do anything but make our patent system weaken.

Seems to me with all the division in the USA that the most important thing is what is reality. Do patents help innovation. That is the key point. All my experience says yes.

All excellent points. I would add that it is impossible to assess the cost to society of the false negatives, viz. patents that aren't allowed by the PTO but should be. No one is going to bother to develop a new drug for which there isn't patent protection - the cost of getting FDA approval is too high. But it's hard if not impossible to identify the drugs-that-might-have-but-for-a-recalcitrant-examiner. With the cost of enforcement having been raised by the introduction of IPRs, which instead of replacing district court litigation are now a mandatory and costly adjunct thereto, coupled with the likelihood of a patent being found invalid under 101, and the long period between investment and return on investment, it's no wonder that investment in the biotech area is not as attractive today as it was 15 years ago, especially in comparison to investments in high tech.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 31