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

« 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

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017ee3f351a3970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GPhA Files Amicus Brief in K-Dur Case:

Comments

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.

September 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