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 | Conference & CLE Calendar »

June 11, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2013483f4b9d0970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Re-examination Ordered on "Expired" Harvard Oncomouse Patent:

Comments

Great story, Kevin. With the speed at which the PTO handles reexams, the odds are that the putative period of enforceability will expire before the reexam is decided - and certainly before the inevitable appeal of the reexam is decided. So will the PTO just drag its feet until 2012, then dismiss on grounds of mootness since the patent has expired and is no longer enforceable? That would set up an appeal only on the question of whether or not the TD applies and not the substantive validity questions; if the CAFC rules that it does not, then it's back to the PTO for a ruling on the merits. Let's hope the PTO changes it ways and deals with this one with the "special dispatch" it's supposed to, and rules on all aspects before it before 2012.

"and not the substantive validity questions;"

moot for lack of cause or controversy?

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