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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Guest Post -- The Emergent Microbiome: A Revolution for the Life Sciences – Part II, 2015 Patent Trends | Main | Federal Circuit Delivers En Banc Opinion in Akamai v. Limelight »

August 12, 2015

Comments

There is a certain poetry in the assertion of "multiply the proceedings" by attempting to throw out proceedings.

Don,

I find it amusing that FFC tries to argue, with a straight face, that its First Amendment right to petition the government is being impinged by this suit by Allergan. That right doesn't protect against "abuse of the process" which I suspect is what's happening with FFC's filing of an IPR proceeding. I do hope the California court nips this frivolous "motion to strike" in the bud.

The assertion of a state law SLAPP suit defense to a suit against an IPR petitioner is clever. Not something many patent attorneys would ever even think of. [And potentially appealing to a judge looking for a quick case disposal?] Most state SLAPP suits also have attorney fee recovery teeth. It will be interesting to see what happens. Is the appeal of this CA D.C. decision going to end up at the 9th Cir. rather than the Fed. Cir.?

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2017

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