decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I do so enjoy a train wreck (Fresenius v Baxter, PTO overrides Federal Circuit) | 96 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I do so enjoy a train wreck (Fresenius v Baxter, PTO overrides Federal Circuit)
Authored by: Tolerance on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
This is wonderful; as a spectacle, I mean. We have the extremely pro-patent
Judge Newman frothing at the mouth because the PTO, of the executive branch, has
had the temerity to override the Federal Judiciary; and it gets away with it
because the legislative branch sides with the executive:

"... Judge Newman ... seems incredulous that the court should permit an
administrative agency to nullify a decision of a federal court. She is not
aware of any counterpart in other areas of the law where an agency can override
a court decision ..."

Her reaction here is at least in part wounded pride. The court could have
avoided this proceeding by a stay, which one of the original panel suggested,
citing precisely this scenario. Newman pooh-poohed the possibility and is now
hoist by her own petard.

The article is right about one thing: this will not be an isolated case; the
recent patent revamp (America Invents Act) provides for more such
second-guessing of the judiciary by the executive, on a much larger scale.
Result:

"Infringers and competitors can get multiple attempts to invalidate
patents? If they lose in one venue, they can simply re-file the case in another
venue? What a waste of judicial and PTO resources."

But it's a waste Americans have (indirectly) voted for. This situation has the
express approval of the legislative branch (because that's what the lobbyists
want).

I await eagerly the first challenge before SCOTUS. It's a train wreck, I tell
you. Where's the popcorn?



---
Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )