The Patent Office wins in CAFC case, JAPANESE FOUNDATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH vs. Lee
the PTO acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and abused its discretion, when it refused to withdraw the terminal
disclaimer on U.S. Patent No. 6,194,187 (“’187 patent”).
The USPTO wins.
The district court suggests that the “PTO is the
Foundation’s only source of adequate relief.”
District Court Op., 2013 WL 3894156, at *9.
We note that in circumstances where a client may be deprived of a claim
based on its attorney’s conduct, and the fa
cts indicate that the “attorney’s conduct falls substantially below what is
reasonable under the circumstances, the client’s remedy is
against the attorney in a suit for malpractice.” Link v.Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634, n.10(1962)