- Reexamination Alert asks: "Was Reexamination the Answer in Tokai v. Easton?"
- "KSR Fears Realized: CAFC Off the Obviousness Deep End" at IP Watchdog says that too many facts were in dispute to make this case appropriate for summary judgment, and that a comparison of the majority opinion and the dissent looks "almost as if they reviewing a different case."
- In a post titled Statements or Need in Patent Applications Risky, the Patent Talk Northwest blog notes that patentee Tokai may have shot itself in the foot by including a statement of unmet need in the Background.
I concur with Patent Talk Northwest. Just this month I wrote two posts about how statements made by an Applicant can lead an Examiner to conclude – rightly or wrongly – that the Applicant has admitted a rationale for combining. These two posts are: