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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


  • "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.


Become a Fan

« Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) | Main | Rules Changes Implementing the Inventor's Oath or Declaration Provisions of the AIA »

October 03, 2012


Wow. PhRMA and GPhA not only on the same side of a cert petition, but for the same reasons. You'd think the people at the FTC would wise up - if it's not GPhA member companies that are going to produce knock-offs of existing drugs, then who's going to do it? But they've been making the "per se anti-competitive" argument for years, why start listening to facts or reason now?

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2018

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