E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Future Drug Sales Predictions Highlight Importance of Follow-on Biologics Legislation »

June 21, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201157047d6fa970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference News from Abroad: Utility under Canadian Patent Law and the Doctrine of Sound Prediction:

Comments

The reason "Eli Lilly's counsel accepted the particular Honk Kong study was necessary to provide a sound line of reasoning" was that the prior art document (Jordan) had disclosed the exact animal test data that the Lilly patent relied on. Lilly's counsel had no choice but to come up with an "inventive" argument. Please re-read the FCA reason for the decision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31