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

« Court Report | Main | Why Does Myriad Think It Can Win BRCA Gene Lawsuits? »

July 29, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201910479e862970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013):

Comments

Patent Expiry of U.S. Patent No. 5,800,808 is mentioned as "(twenty years from date of issuance, or Sept. 1, 2018".

According to my understanding it should be "(seventeen years from date of issuance, or Sept. 1, 2015".

Dear Manisha,

Thank you for catching that mistake. Of course, you are correct, it should be seventeen years from the date of issuance (and we will try to correct the original post). However, the original point is still the same – the ‘808 patent has a later expiration date than the other patents at issue. Oddly, the Federal Circuit glossed over this fact, only looking to the Orange Book for patent expiration information. In fact, during oral argument, the Court seemed to be confused by the fact that there could be non-Orange Book listed patents in suit. The result should be a shortening of the injunction because of the invalidation of the ‘808 patent.

Thank you again for catching that mistake.

Andrew

Although this is somewhat off topic, I wanted to ask: do federal district courts sometimes use neutral expert witnesses, to clarify scientific, or otherwise technical issues for the jury?
In a fairly recent debate about patents, between Judge R. Posner and Professor R. Epstein, Judge Posner said that he likes using neutral witnesses when he volunteers as a judge in patent cases, at the district court level, because they are less "coached" by their lawyers and are therefore more honest and straight-forward in volunteering their technical expertise.
Is this practice picking up some steam, or do courts remain generally conservative in this regard and maintain a robust adversarial legal structure?

Igor Faynshteyn, Esq.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 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