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

« Hyatt v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | USPTO Releases 2010 Performance and Accountability Report »

November 16, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2013489145411970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cancer Research Technology Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010):

Comments

In my opinion, the majority got this one right. The inequitable conduct ruling, in particular, comes as a relief. Although I understand Judge Prost's perspective, if the majority had ruled the opposite way, it could (and most likely would) have opened the door to even more abuse of the inequitable conduct doctrine. If "creat[ing] a new evidentiary standard" is what it takes to prevent that eventuality, then I'm all for it.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-corporation-helps-patent-owners-enforce-their-ip-rights

Prejudice requirement is redundant as there are little chance for investment on that product till date patent protection is there whether genuine or in-genuine.

Attaching such additional and stringent criteria to prove would only undermine the application of available deference for generics and help this defense loose its significance with time.

Why to prove prejudice? or this requirement is made to save what?
will tell you why this is redundant and what made its insertion in proving prosecution laches.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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