The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Tafas v. Dudas case (now styled as Tafas v. Doll).
I provided several updates on Twitter as I read the opinion, and reproduce them below for the wider audience:
1. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – CON limit contrary to patent act; all other rules, including RCE and ESD, are not –> BASED ONLY ON ARGS PRESENTED.
2. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Bryson concurrence – opinion does not decide whether limit on SERIALLY-FILED CONS would be consistent with patent act
3. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Judge Rader dissents, would strike down all proposed rules as substantive limitations carrying “startling change”
4. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Next – request for panel reh’g and for reh’g en banc. At this point, two judges decided a major patent policy issue.
5. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Meanwhile, USPTO sits without a Director…without a policy leader. What comes of the new rules and this decision?
6. CAFC Tafas v. Dudas (Doll) opinion: http://is.gd/ocWP
I’ll provide a more detailed analysis when I post my full review of the case.
Discussion
There are One response to this post, including 0 comments, 0 pings, 0 tweetbacks, and 0 related tweets.
You can join the discussion by leaving a comment on this page using the form at the bottom, by pinging the page with a post on your own site, or by adding a tweet to your Twitter page that mentions the post.
I try to collect related tweets that readers of the post will find helpful or interesting. If you know of a tweet that provides background content, a different viewpoint, or other relevant information, please send me a link to the tweet.
Comments
# posted on 03.20.09 at 3:40 pm
This is far from over. What a waste of government money fighting this and even making these rules. An applicant has 20 years from his filing date. If it takes longer due to continuations, he loses part of this term and he pays a fee for the continuations. Likewise, if an applicant has more than 25 claims (actually more than 20), he pays for each additional claim. The USPTO has structured it in such a way that their examiners don’t get more time to review the claims when there are more, but they charge the applicant for these claims. This is already an inequity and they are solving it by harming the applicant further rather than making USPTO procedures fair, e.g. get what you pay for.
Pings
There are no pings to this post.
Tweetbacks
There are no tweetbacks to this post.
Other relevant tweets
I haven't added any other tweets to this post.
Leave a comment