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

« Government Sticks to Its Guns in Bowman v. Monsanto Amicus Brief | Main | BayhDol25 Files Amicus Brief in Bowman v. Monsanto »

January 29, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017c36680db5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013):

Comments

Both decisions are of course wrong.
The expression in parentheses with a subscript means always, either in chemistry or in any other science (except apparently in legal science), the repetition of an homologous group. Even a disclaimer cannot overcome universal rules, moreover taking into account that the number of variables available (Rx) is illimitable.
Chemist tip: save yourself from trouble by just following IUPAC (Internation Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry)rules.

Their expert, "whose prevarication and inconsistency were repeatedly demonstrated during Allergan’s cross examination," relied on a reference that he'd disparaged (in an earlier trial) as unreliable. Thus shot down, "Defendants in this case clearly present a different theory of obviousness post-trial than was presented at trial."

"Ouch!" indeed.

A lesson here, in the vetting and prepping of expert witnesses, that should be of interest to everybody -- not just the chemists in the audience.

"Both decisions are of course wrong." Maybe on the planet Bizarro; here on Earth in the USA, they're both right. As Michael noted, the patentee could have saved itself time and money if it had just said "R4 is independently at each occurrence selected from...", but there's support in the specification for concluding, as CAFC did, that this is what the patentee meant, even though it didn't explicitly use those words. And with the only testimony left before the court stating that no one would have considered using an analogous amide as a prodrug, the conclusion that changing the ester to an amide was not obvious was the only conclusion to be drawn.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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