by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit recently issued an important decision in In re: Cellect, LLC (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) regarding how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). This case establishes binding precedent that a terminal disclaimer cuts off any extended patent term granted through PTA.
This holding contrasts with the court’s prior rulings regarding Patent Term Extension (PTE), where the extended term is calculated from the disclaimed expiration date, not the original expiration date. Thus, PTE extends beyond a disclaimed term, while PTA does not.
This result was expected by many patent experts, although some in the pharmaceutical industry had pushed for PTA to extend beyond disclaimed terms similarly to PTE. In the end, the statutory language expressly addressing disclaimers in the context of PTA proved decisive. This precedent will apply to all patents already in-force as well as those issued in the future. Thus, applicants will want to carefully consider PTA and terminal disclaimer strategy for patent families.
If I were the judge, I would consider eliminating non-statutory double patenting. I expect the doctrine would have never developed under our current patent term calculation and is instead a vestige of history.
Millions of U.S. patents are tied to a family member patent via terminal disclaimer and its accompanying promise of continued common ownership. A terminal disclaimer generally disclaims any patent term that would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of the reference patent and are generally required for the USPTO in order to overcome a rejection for obviousness-type double patenting.
Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a judicially created doctrine that prevents an inventor from obtaining a second patent for claims that are not patentably distinct from claims in a first patent. The doctrine has its stated origins in 35 U.S.C. 101, which provides that an inventor may obtain “a patent” (singular) for an invention. The obviousness question normally focuses on prior-art as required by Section 103. ODP doctrine does not consider prior art but rather non-prior-art patents (or applications) with overlapping inventorship.
Although the statutory hook of Section 101 focuses on one-patent-per-invention, the policy concern is also highly focused on ensuring that a patentee cannot obtain multiple patents on a single invention in order to improperly extend the patent term. This problem is largely historic — stemming from the time when patent term was determined based upon the date of issuance and prior to publication of applications. These transformations have substantially limited gamesmanship potential. However, in the patent-term-adjustment world, it is possible to extend a patent’s term by several years in situations where the patent applicant has a successful PTAB appeal.
ODP is intended to prevent an inventor from securing a second, later-expiring patent for small modifications or obvious variations of the same invention claimed in an earlier patent. The goal is to prevent an unjustified extension of the term of exclusivity for the invention beyond the original patent term. ODP is most commonly applied when two commonly owned patents share overlapping or obvious claims but have different expiration dates. The courts have concluded that a terminal disclaimer by the patentee along with a binding promise of ongoing co-ownership serves as a solution — allowing both patents to issue. The result is effectively a single patent with a single patent term designed to preventing potential harassment from multiple assignees asserting commonly owned patents covering the same invention.
= = =
The case at hand involves several Cellect patents related to image sensors in personal digital assistants and phones. The patents are all part of a family and all claim priority to the same original application. The patents also received varying Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) to extend their terms due to USPTO delays during examination.
After Cellect sued Samsung for infringement, Samsung requested ex parte reexaminations of Cellect’s patents asserting they were unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) over earlier expiring patents in the family. The examiner agreed the claims were unpatentable for ODP in the reexaminations. The Board affirmed the unpatentability findings.
On appeal, Cellect argued that PTA should be available beyond the disclaimed portion of the term — noting that the judge-made-law could not overcome the statutory guarantee. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board and rejected Cellect’s arguments. The clincher here is that Congress identified disclaimers within the PTA statute, stating: “No patent the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date may be adjusted under this section beyond the expiration date specified in the disclaimer.” 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(B). In other words, Congress appears to be stating that PTA cannot extend a patent term beyond what was disclaimed — but this is exactly what Cellect was asking for. The appellate panel also agreed with the PTAB that Cellect received an unjustified timewise extension and a terminal disclaimer was required to ensure common ownership since the later patents were clearly obvious variants of the original. An otherwise result would effectively confer PTA on the earlier issued patents even though they were not entitled.
In summary, the unjustified extension stemmed from the challenged claims extending beyond the expiration of the one family member (‘036) that did not receive PTA. This could have been resolved with a terminal disclaimer, but none were filed.
The decision thus establishes how PTA granted under 35 USC 154 should be factored into the ODP analysis — and the result does not favor patent families.
In one case, the original patent got a significant PTA that brought it out several years beyond the date that was 20 years from the original filing date. The child application got an obviousness-type double patenting rejection so it terminates on the 20 years from original filing date. The grandchild application issued and received no double patenting rejections during prosecution so it also terminates on the 20 years from original filing date. So, the patent on the original application will live on for several years beyond the life of its progeny. A case of a parent outliving its children.
So it seems like it’s still an open question (having read the decision and the statutory language) as to whether the expiration date set by a terminal disclaimer can be *after* the (unextended) statutory expiration date of the reference patent. Here, the reference patent (identified in the decision) had not acquired either PTA or PTE and claimed priority to a nonprovisional application filed on October 6, 1997. But what if it had acquired PTA and so would have expired after October 6, 2017, and what if terminal disclaimers had been filed in the related applications and recited that they would expire after the (extended) term of the reference patent? It seems like it might still be permissible for disclaimed patents to have at least the PTA-extended term of the reference patent if a terminal disclaimer is filed, provided the wording of the terminal disclaimer allows for that.
This is a very good post, but I disagree that ODP is obsolete. I’d argue that abuse of the continuation system provides a rationale for ODP that is quite similar to the original rationale: ensuring that a patentable invention receives one statutory term and nothing more. Do you really need the PTA if one of the many family members was issued and in force during the time of the PTO’s delay anyway?
Abuse….?
Not unusual to get 20+ applications or more, and close to a 1000 claims, out of one disclosure. That’s abuse, and the system was not designed that way.
Meh, your statement on its face bespeaks opinion and feeling without substance.
Over the spectrum of activity that I see, it is only the much more rare gargantuan specifications that breed such large families.
Further, the existing constraints remove most all negative impacts, and thus your emotive word choice of “abuse” just does not fit.
If a client chooses the mechanism of large claim sets (either through Continuation practice — or the prior, and now less economical “100 plus claims” in a single application, neither are actual abuses.
Every single claim is duly processed through the system just as any other claim.
Your feelings are merely reflective of your anti-patent “Just Say No” mindset.
… and the system has been specifically designed for the (Continuation) practice we see.
You are misplacing your feelings against reality.
… do you remember the Rogue attempt by the administrative agency of the executive branch trying to usurp the Legislative Branch’s authority and having their ‘hands’ slapped by the courts?
If a Congress were comprised of 317 / 535 bar-card carriers, would it be unreasonable to expect that the Courts would not be inclined to protect their own ? :))))
Not seeing your point, Chrissy.
I expect each member of each branch to act according to their office — whether or not they may also be “bar-card carriers.”
Remember when Snowflake got so confused he called himself a liar?
Remember when Snowflake crawled it his parents basement and thought he put boundy in his place?? Good times.
Wow – your choices in your 0bsess10n over me is raining coin into my accounts with so many multipliers here.
Your choice of attempting to have a last word with insertion of comment with long elapsed timing that you had no part of with choice of posting completely unrelated to that discussion, doubling with a plurality of that “we” that is singularly you, along with your choice of material that is outright false and has been thoroughly debunked.
So much coin.
So much 0bsess110n.
So much absence of any actual attempt to have a discussion (shall we review again the elements of cyber-stalking?)
Not unusual to get 20+ applications or more, and close to a 1000 claims, out of one disclosure. That’s abuse, and the system was not designed that way.
I’m not sure why that is abuse?
While I prefer to write a single, stand-alone application per inventive concept, it isn’t unheard of law firms drafting a single ‘omnibus’ patent that covers a multitude of patentable ideas. For example, a single new product (let’s call it an improved wifi router) might embody 15-20 new and patentable concepts. In that situation, a single application is filed with a multitude of continuations filed off of that single application. Alternatively, the same specification will be used in multiple applications filed the same day. There are many ways to do this and none of them are abusive per se.
If you think it is abusive, you need to explain your reasoning in greater detail.
My issue at the end of the day is that the quality of examination is really poor from what I’ve seen–e.g., compare obviousness standards in court or the PTAB vs. during examination. A lot of it traces back to the lack of finality caused by the sheer number of continuations, RCEs, etc. that applicants can pile onto an examiner which avoids going up to the Board and ultimately the Federal Circuit to resolve disputes during examination.
In addition, getting 10-20 patents on basically the same invention makes patent litigation obnoxious–especially when it happens *during* the litigation– and drives up the cost of IPRs, all in an effort to avoid final resolution of validity challenges.
the quality of examination is really poor from what I’ve seen–e.g., compare obviousness standards in court or the PTAB vs. during examination
I don’t know about that. What makes the quality of examination poor during prosecution? If you are talking about making obviousness rejections by combining two very different references to come up with something neither of them even came close to contemplating, then I agree with you. However, I suspect that isn’t where you are headed.
A lot of it traces back to the lack of finality caused by the sheer number of continuations, RCEs, etc. that applicants can pile onto an examiner which avoids going up to the Board and ultimately the Federal Circuit to resolve disputes during examination.
That is part of the process. Personally, I like going to the Board and I would like my clients to want to go to the Federal Circuit. However, it is both a lengthy and expensive process so it is easier (and cheaper and quicker) to file a RCE (or Continuation). A good portion of patent prosecution involves a tradeoff — getting a litigation-ready patent versus just getting a patent. Some clients just want a patent … until they want to litigate that patent and then you had better have a Continuation in the works so you can fix everything that results from a cheap prosecution budget.
In addition, getting 10-20 patents on basically the same invention makes patent litigation obnoxious–especially when it happens *during* the litigation– and drives up the cost of IPRs, all in an effort to avoid final resolution of validity challenges.
This goes back to fixing the problems of a cheap prosecution budget. You don’t want to lose a patent because of some small mistake so you fix the mistake. A couple of years later, you identify another mistake and/or include some limitation that is important now but wasn’t 5 years ago. Moreover, it is pretty tough to get 15-20 patents on just a single idea — related ideas, yes, but not a single idea.
Ultimately, you only have 20 years from your earliest priority date to work with and you’ve probably lost 5-10 years of that just on prosecution and getting a good set of claims.
Personally, my preference is that the patent system favors inventors over infringers. As such, to the extent that the system puts a burden on an infringer (to provide some benefit for the inventor), I’m for it. The legal system has ways to deal with frivolous lawsuits, so I’m not worried about abusive litigation.
Personally, my preference is that the patent system favors inventors over infringers. As such, to the extent that the system puts a burden on an infringer (to provide some benefit for the inventor), I’m for it. The legal system has ways to deal with frivolous lawsuits, so I’m not worried about abusive litigation.
I do not disagree, but I think that you are talking past Kyle, rather than addressing the point that he is making. Kyle’s point is that the system would be more subject to abuse if we did not have the ODP doctrine and the corresponding terminal disclaimer practice. Just as your point seems correct to me, so does his.
Yes, the legal system has ways to deal with frivolous suits. One of those checks against frivolous suits is the doctrine of res judicata. Right now, if a patentee extracts 15-20 patents from a single application, then the patentee must tie the overlapping patents together with a terminal disclaimer. This ensures that you cannot sell 5 of those patents to X, and 5 to Y, and keep the rest for oneself. If one could assign those related patents to various different parties, then one could end up with a situation in which a judgment against X does not foreclose Y from later suing separately, thus obviating one of the important bulwarks the system carries against abusive lawsuits.
I think that the status quo is actually pretty good. The existence of terminal disclaimers makes it possible (as you note) for inventors to get proper protection around the full commercially valuable scope of their own inventions, but in a manner that does not unreasonably subject the public to a multiplicity of lawsuits.
Prof. C’s original post suggests that we should do away with DOP. Kyle (and others) are pushing back against that idea. To my mind, Kyle has the better of this argument against Prof. C. If—as they say—it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The current regime works. Probably best to leave it well enough alone, but if any changes are to be made, it really should be left to Congress (not, as Prof. C. suggests, something that judges should consider on their own initiative).
Thanks Dozens, largely agree with your post. But I think claim preclusion law in patent infringement, like that of all IP litigation from what I know, is too lenient.
I would say it should change in two ways: (1) should apply to all a plaintiff’s claims for infringement stemming from the accused conduct–doesn’t matter if you just got a new patent after judgment, you get one chance to litigate your patent infringement claims just like other claims in litigation; (2) infringing conduct should be considered as a course of substantially similar conduct, whether before or after judgment; only changes that materially alter the infringement analysis can give rise to a new suit. This is different from the current case law on “same conduct” in both copyright and patent suits, which deems every infringement its own “transaction or occurrence”.
Kyle’s point is that the system would be more subject to abuse if we did not have the ODP doctrine and the corresponding terminal disclaimer practice.
Any change the reduces the amount of valid patents makes the system less subject to abuse. If we take it to its ultimate end, eliminating all patents (or issuing just 100 patents/year, for example) would make the system less subject to abuse. As such, merely pointing that out doesn’t help move the conversation along. Rather, the question should be whether the burdens imposed on applicants/patentees outweighed by other considerations.
Right now, if a patentee extracts 15-20 patents from a single application, then the patentee must tie the overlapping patents together with a terminal disclaimer.
There is no “must” involved here. A terminal disclaimer is only needed for obvious variations of what is claimed. A single disclosure can contain dozens of patentably distinct inventions.
This ensures that you cannot sell 5 of those patents to X, and 5 to Y, and keep the rest for oneself. If one could assign those related patents to various different parties, then one could end up with a situation in which a judgment against X does not foreclose Y from later suing separately, thus obviating one of the important bulwarks the system carries against abusive lawsuits.
Not all patents are invalidated under obviousness (especially these days). Consequently, a judgement against X on a non-obviousness issue should not necessarily foreclose Y from later suing (assuming that the non-obviousness issue was addressed in Y’s patents).
in a manner that does not unreasonably subject the public to a multiplicity of lawsuits.
Except this “multiplicity of lawsuits” is a made up boogeyman.
not, as Prof. C. suggests, something that judges should consider on their own initiative
If the judges created the doctrine (which they did), then they should have the prerogative (should they so desire) to end it.
[T]he question should be whether the burdens imposed on applicants/patentees outweighed by other considerations.
Agreed. I did not mean to leave an impression to the contrary.
A terminal disclaimer is only needed for obvious variations of what is claimed. A single disclosure can contain dozens of patentably distinct inventions.
Right, which is why I confined my remarks to “overlapping” (“overlapping” being an antonym of “distinct”).
Not all patents are invalidated under obviousness (especially these days). Consequently, a judgement against X on a non-obviousness issue should not necessarily foreclose Y from later suing (assuming that the non-obviousness issue was addressed in Y’s patents).
I think that you have misunderstood me. My apologies for my lack of clarity.
Insofar as the claims of patent A claim no more than an obvious variation of that which is claimed in patent B, then the ODP doctrine (and the corresponding terminal disclaimers that resolve ODP) ensures that patent A cannot be assigned to X and patent B assigned to Y. That is the context in which my #4.1.1.3.1.1.1 was offered.
Naturally, if (as I gather you are) one is talking about patents that are not claiming merely obvious variations, each of the other, then ODP has no relevance. In such a circumstance, there is nothing unjust or untoward about X owning patent C and Y owning patent D, and X and Y acting independently of each other. My #4.1.1.3.1.1.1 (being set in the context of a discussion of ODP) was only intended to address a circumstance in which ODP is relevant.
Except this “multiplicity of lawsuits” is a made up boogeyman.
Yes, I agree—in the context of the present legal regime, which includes ODP. If one removes ODP from the context, then the bogeyman become more real. That is ODP continues to serve a useful role, even in a world in which patent terms are measured from earliest filing date instead of grant date.
If the judges created the doctrine (which they did), then they should have the prerogative (should they so desire) to end it.
I am not sure what “should” means in this context. Under the doctrine of statutory stare decisis, once Congress amends the patent act without undoing a judicial doctrine, then Congress is to be understood to have adopted the doctrine.
It is true, of course, that a court still can reverse its prior precedents in such circumstances, but that does not mean that they should do so. It would really be for the best if Congress made the decision about whether (and to what extent) to abrogate ODP doctrine.
Dozens, largely agree with your post. But I think claim preclusion law in patent infringement, like that of all IP litigation from what I know, is too lenient.
Just to be clear, when I said that “I think that the status quo is actually pretty good,” I meant the status quo specifically regarding ODP. I do not mean that the status quo is good on every legal doctrine (I think that the status quo of subject matter eligibility is a dog’s breakfast). In any event, for whatever it is worth, I agree with your #1 & #2.
The hidden signaling in — leave a”n” — looks the puppeteers are getting ready to cut the puppet strings.
(and I love the perfunctory “but Trump must still be considered “worse””)
“If one removes ODP from the context, then the bogeyman become more real,/i>”
To what degree? Anything even approaching de minimus?
I would posit that the ‘bump’ is FAR LESS than the ‘fake’ bump in the AIA itself which artificially inflated lawsuit counts by requiring non-practicing entities to NOT lump in multiple parties in a single suit.
Thank you for the background on prosecution. I have a reg number, but I’ve never done prosecution, so that’s informative.
I have, however, seen a lot of file wrappers in the course of litigation, and they’re not great imo. Examiners pretty much just mash a couple of references together, say it’s the same field, and call it a day. But when challenged on rationale, they won’t maintain them even when meritorious (same with most 112 issues). This should be apparent from how often patents are held invalid in court/PTAB, despite the presumption of validity. And it probably would be even more often, if courts didn’t feel an obligation to chart a “moderate” course.
I’m just going to focus on this: “However, it is both a lengthy and expensive process so it is easier (and cheaper and quicker) to file a RCE (or Continuation).”
This should not be the case. This is why briefs have page limits and you only get one. You have to make people choose arguments and funnel disputes toward resolution in an efficient way. I grant you the practical considerations you explained, but to me it would make sense for patents to be better vetted on the front end, so validity is not such a big deal on the back end.
And the legal system has ways to deal with frivolous suits, sure, but they often don’t work very well–in patent suits or other complex litigation. The difference is that getting a patent (or other IP to some extent) gives you a right to be in court, usually until summary judgment at least.
“Thank you for the background on prosecution. I have a reg number, but I’ve never done prosecution,”
So you are in the habit of accusing “abuse” when you really have no c1ue about prosecution….
I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.
But when challenged on rationale, they won’t maintain them even when meritorious (same with most 112 issues).
Not sure how many file wrappers you’ve seen that constitutes “a lot” but I’ve dealt with close to a couple thousand different patent applications, and your assertion that examiners won’t maintain obviousness rejections when challenged is laughable on its face.
This should not be the case.
Why would a client want to spend $50K-$100K on an appeal to the Board when they can just amend for probably under $5K (that is USPTO fees and attorney fees)? You don’t do that if you are just building up a patent portfolio. You might do that for ‘bet-the-company’ type patents but those are few and far between.
Patent litigators don’t appreciate how little a client wants to spend on the acquisition of a patent. To a patent litigator, they wouldn’t think twice about dropping $20K-$50K on some minor filing. However, a lot clients don’t want to spend $20K on the entire patent prosecution process including the initial preparation of the application.
but to me it would make sense for patents to be better vetted on the front end, so validity is not such a big deal on the back end.
When maybe a fraction of a percent of patents get litigated, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend the money on the front end. I would like it if they did, but the clients have done the cost/benefit analysis and it doesn’t make sense to most of them.
The difference is that getting a patent (or other IP to some extent) gives you a right to be in court, usually until summary judgment at least.
That life. And getting a patent is so much more difficult than getting a trademark or copyright and I’m sure those types of litigations are far more prevalent than patent litigation.
“Why would a client want to spend $50K-$100K on an appeal to the Board” should read “Why would a client want to spend $50K-$100K on an appeal to the Federal Circuit.”
The Court states, “We do, however, note that the non-asserted
claims in the challenged patents are entitled to their full
term, including the duly granted PTA, unless they are
found to be later-filed obvious variations of earlier-filed,
commonly owned claims. We have no basis for considera-
tion of that issue here.” I had thought terminal disclaimers were filed disclaiming term for all of the claims in a patent, not just for some. Am I wrong about this?
Terminal disclaimers are directed to the ODP rejection. It can easily happen that not all claims receive the ODP rejection. There are often some overlapping claims that deserve the ODP rejection while there can be another group of pending claims that add something new that would not be obvious over the parent patent.
+1
Except the actual Terminal Disclaimer form doesn’t break it down like this, right? I understand your point, but the actual document doesn’t seem to break it down.
Correct. The term of the PATENT is disclaimed, not only those claims subject to the rejection.
Xactly. So why did Snowflake agree with the misstatement of the law?
Remember when Snowflake got so confused he called himself a liar?
A five-fold conglomeration from the ‘plural’ you today, eh Shifty? Sadly each misses and misses badly.
I know that you like to think that your past (mere) assertions are ‘facts,’ but they are not. ALL of your (ever abundant) attempts at ‘gotcha’ have ever been misses.
No confusion from me. Ever.
But thank$ $ $ $ $ for your choices.
Snowflake flake don’t remember cause. But remember when his own designated expert concluded he was a sloppy reader, writer, and thinker? Who was that?
Thank you again for the coin from your choice of posting on an item already well debunked, given as I can commend Boundy for his patent law knowledge and at the same time he critical of his ineptitude on a point of law that I corrected him on and his lack of understanding of the forum of blogging (and how his ego just got in his own way when I corrected him).
Your wanting this to be a “gotcha” simply will not make it so, and instead only displays your 0bsess10n with me.
Maybe instead try (just try) to advance a point for an actual conversation?
When was my pal Shifty’s last appearance?
June 21 (as BF)?
June 1 (as SM)?
By the by, the committee has confirmed that even tangent 0bsess10ns (choices by Shifty) qualify as earning coin.
So thank$$ are in order.
(and by the by the by, read again what I agreed to, as there is no mistake of law to what Dvan stated)
What merits do you think that you presented?
I mean, I did draw your attention to the merits of DVan’s post. Did you somehow have something else in mind (even as you practiced Malcolm’s
A
O
O
T
W
M
D ….?
Note the ad hominem and avoiding the merits? That’s our Snowflake.
See ^^^ 3.1.2.1.2.1
And still the avoiding the merits?
In his troubled mind he thinks nobody notices.
Another two (and compounded) steps back for you, my pal Shifty….
The reprise of:
Your false presentation contains nothing new (but your choice still earns me coin).
Do you have (anything) to actually add to the conversation, or just – and only – this cyber ha Rass ment?
fits, as you plainly have no intention of actually having a conversation.
And he thinks (apparently) that nobody saw the avoiding the merits.
Multiplier payout in effect for the choice of presenting a false conclusion.
Thank$$
(by the by, don’t you think that you have run this rhetorical t001 of yours into the ground?) At this point, it is a good bet that only you and I are paying attention, and we both know how b0gus your choices are.
And still ducking the merits because apparently he does not get that we see the ducking of the merits.
His own designated expert concluded he is a sloppy reader, writer, and thinker.
My last three posts each refute your assertions, my pal Shifty.
Further, attempting to invoke the rebutted “expert” — yet again — earns me coin with that choice of yours.
There certainly is sloppiness here — just not how you wish it to be.
He thinks everybody was fooled. Sad.
You are not improving the quality of your posts by increasing the quantity.
That being said, you ARE increasing my income with your choices of posts.
That you already know this makes it even more delightful.
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
You are falling into your projection mode, my pal Shifty.
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase, which literally translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” An essential part of any personal injury case is being able to show that the other party’s wrongdoing or negligence caused the injury at issue.
As you have repeatedly pointed out, my comment is NOT the “gotcha” moment that you so hunger for.
All this does is just paint how very 0bsessed you are with me — and how over the course of Several years now, you have utterly
f
a
i
l
e
d
to be successful — even once — in attributing a significant error to me.
And THAT most definitely speaks for itself.
… second paragraph should be in quotes…
(hint: this is a non significant error)
Third paragraph should read “As I have,”
(again, this is not a significant error, as in the context of the dialogue, the meaning is clear)
Notice even Max made fun of your Wikipedia fetish? Deeper understanding of the law if you had gone to law school.
A triple error in your assertion here.
Thank $ $ $
You consulted Wikipedia again. We are impressed you can do the Internests.
Whether or not the plural you that is “we” is impressed has exactly ZERO bearing.
On anything.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Remember when Snowflake didn’t understand the doctrine of equivalents and cut and paste from Wikipedia and Wikipedia was wrong?
“Remember when Snowflake didn’t understand the doctrine of equivalents …”
Impossible to remember what did not happen.
“and cut and paste from Wikipedia…”
The kernel of truth in your attempted
L
I
E
“and Wikipedia was wrong?”
Two things on this: I have already pointed out that this is a brand new position of yours that moves the goalposts and that you STILL attempting to make this some sort of “gotcha” just does not work AND you have provided NO backing to your assertion of ANY error at point in this supposedly wrong Wiki entry.
Further yet, the Wiki item that g0red your BU11 had to do with the Nobel prize — and the relation to dynamite.
You just cannot get out of your own way in your 0bsess10n over me.
Now I remember. Snowflake cut and paste from Wikipedia but Wikipedia was wrong.
And as usual, you remember incorrectly.
You accused me of both not knowing how to use the Wiki and of me getting that Wiki wrong.
Here, this is the very first instance of you moving the goalposts to being that the Wiki itself may have been wrong.
The plain written (and captured) word simply vindicates my position — and shows yet another instance of your 0bsess10n with me, attempting to assert a “gotcha” moment that is just not there.
You really need to come to grips with your 0bsess10n.
Nope. Read again Snowflake.
Yes Snowflake cut and paste a mistake in Wikipedia about the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Everybody saw that and he should have been embarrassed.
No we all praised you for your ability to cut and paste stuff from the Internet s. Where do you get this stuff?
A five-fold conglomeration from the ‘plural’ you today, eh Shifty? Sadly each misses and misses badly.
I know that you like to think that your past (mere) assertions are ‘facts,’ but they are not. ALL of your (ever abundant) attempts at ‘gotcha’ have ever been misses.
You STILL remember the Wikpedia incident incorrectly – and even that, in a self-conflicting manner, attributing – newly here – a mistake BY Wiki to be a mistake by me. As you never challenged the baseline material itself (you quite ran away from that), your ‘desire’ to have some gotcha does not – and cannot – reach.
And here – no avoiding from me – as I have pointed out several times above.
But thank$ $ $ $ $ for your choices.
Don’t get him too confused. He will call himself a liar.
Your false presentation contains nothing new (but your choice still earns me coin).
Do you have (anything) to actually add to the conversation, or just – and only – this cyber ha Rass ment?
The last 200 hired at the PTAB all clerked at the fed cir. Thank you James Smith.
Well, that’s a start.
Absolutely unrelated to anything at point here, but still a start.
I am curious as to the veracity of your statement as well as whether this information was garnered from your administrative role in the patent office prior to your retirement.
I am also curious as to what — if any — significance you would attribute any such (large) flow of single-source viewpoint.