E-mail Newsletter

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

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

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

« USPTO Issues Memo on Use of Non-Patent Literature During Examination | Main | Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) »

January 24, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e20167610907ac970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Medicines Company to Get Patent Term Extension:

Comments

"Less than six weeks later, on April 26, 2007, the PTO denied the request, again with no explanation of the inconsistency in the FDA's position on submissions to and notices from the agency."

Kevin,

That's truly a disturbing observation. And why I feel federal agencies should be entitled to NO "Chevron" deference when it comes to interpreting the laws they administer.

Kevin, wasn't this remedied by the APA? I thought it included a section that defined the 60-day term in a way that retroactively made MCO's filing a timely one.

Dear Cranky:

Yes, the AIA did address this, but TMC was still in active litigation with APP. In view of the history of the case, I think TMC wanted to be certain no one was motivated to appeal the retroactive effect of the AIA provisions.

But point taken. Thanks for the comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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