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

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Interactive Graphic Illustrates How U.S. Patent System Has Driven American Economy »

September 15, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20120a5735e53970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2009):

Comments

Kevin,

Nice capsulation of this case. There's enough in here to give you an Excedrin headache trying to digest it.

Kevin,

Your point about expiration dates and the value of the '349 and '933 patents is a good one. I don't know if you considered the impacts of any terminal disclaimers that have been filed. If the face pages of the '080 and '698 patents are to be believed, their terms have been shortened to 2013 and 2012 respectively, heightening the contrast with the later expiration dates of the '349 and '933 patents.

Very good post, Kevin. Thank you for cogently summarizing the history of the case and the claims at issue.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the double patenting discussion, and specifically on the interplay between this case and Takeda v. Doll.

Dear Brian:

Thanks for picking that up - I looked at the PTO website rather than at the faces of the patents.

On that note, do you happen to know when the '422 patent expires? The face of that patent says the term has been shortened by terminal disclaimer, but it doesn't state the expiration date. Helpful.

Thanks for the comment.

Kevin,

I don't know the answer. However, a document at the following link purports to be a paper filed by Roche in district court, and asserts that the '422 patent expires August 20, 2013.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2005cv12237/100734/994/0.pdf

If true, then the '349 patent would appear to provide the last 21 months of patent term (from August of 2013 to May of 2015).


But isn't this a terrible decision for America? If Amgen's corporate bottom line is affected adversely, then Amgen won't be able to afford the expensive costs of developing new drugs and people will die. Not to mention the stockholders who will be less able to afford medical treatments for their families.

Perhaps the government should step in and change the laws regarding patent terms so we can be assured of more drugs in the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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