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

« USPTO Issues Final Rule to Implement Miscellaneous Post Patent Provisions of AIA | Main | Web Conference on AIA Implementation »

August 09, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017617215eec970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012):

Comments

Kevin,

Nice summary of Moore's majority and the problems in it. Let me just say now that Moore's opinion reads 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) in a manner contrary to the statutory language (by reading "solely for uses" virtually out of the statute), and more importantly, completely inconsistent with the clear legislative intent for when this “safe harbor” provision was to apply. Even more troubling, Judge Moore’s majority opinion cannot be easily squared with the earlier Federal Circuit case of Classen which strongly suggests (if it does not specifically hold) that the “safe harbor” does not apply to post-FDA approval activity. It is also questionable whether Momenta’s patented analytical method even qualifies as a “patented invention” that is subject to this “safe harbor” provision in view of Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.

I'll save "the rest of my story" for when you post about Rader's (vociferous) dissent.

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