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


  • "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


« Webinar on Patent Searching for Engineering Technologies | Main | SawStop Holding LLC v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022) »

September 28, 2022


As a former Solicitor of the PTO, my opinion has always been that the business of the PTO should not be addressing the potential for post-issuance harrassment by multiple parties holding patents to obvious variations of an invention. Once the "unjust timewise extension" issue became a non-issue, the PTO should have been relieved from its role in addressing non-statutory double patenting. It's time for the Federal Circuit to overrule earlier opinions that have held otherwise. In fact, getting rid of non-statutory double patenting altogether would be an even better idea. Such law has been very confusing for a long time and added significant burdens to litigation.

"Once the 'unjust timewise extension' issue became a non-issue.."

But it has not become a "non-issue." Just because *continuations* no longer result in a term extension does not mean that an applicant cannot file a *new filing* on something that is no more than an obvious variation of an earlier filing. Perhaps the CAFC can obviate ODP as a category of invalidity for members of the same family, but that would not put an end to ODP as a category of invalidity altogether.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

December 2022

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