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

« Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | News from Abroad: Not One But Two Decisions Fine Tune the Australian Patent Office's Approach to Life Science Technologies »

November 28, 2016

Comments

𝝅r^2 is area not the volume of a cylinder which is 2𝝅rh. The overall closed length specification of a Coin-Snap capsule is 25.3 mm for the 00el and 23.3 mm for the 00. Thus, the extra 2 mm in length provides an increased volume of 51.39 mm^3 (using the external diameter of 8.18 mm or radius of 4.09 mm not exactly correct but a good approximation.)

Flipping auto correct - it is Coni-Snap not Coin-Snap.

Come to think of it, THREE litigators in the Federal Circuit for the patentee/plaintiff. Did NONE of them consider the prospects of success if the patent were seriously challenged e.g. for obviousness? Not a case that should EVER have got near a court!

Thanks, Karl, but 𝝅r^2 was not the end of the formula - it was multiplied by (looel-loo), which was intended to be the difference in length between the size 00el and size 00 capsules. Sorry if that wasn't clear, and thanks for the extra calculations.

This wasn't necessarily a case of failing to anticipate a design-around. A declaration that the limited volume of the 00 capsule is the basis for non-obviousness very clearly disclaims (and opens the door for non-infringing) larger-volume capsules. If the applicants decided that this was the only way to get allowance, it's a case of taking your chances with the scope of the claims.

This what can happen when parties use "litigators" instead of "patent lawyer litigators." An able patent litigator with years of experience in the "prosecution trenches" wrestling with USPTO examiners over claims would probably have picked this up very early in the process.

When will pharma corporate learn?

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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