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

« The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report -- Part IV »

April 10, 2017

Comments

Somebody should have cited, if they have not already done so, the proposition that protection should be given to any validly patentable subject-matter, this policy being consistent since the passage of the UK Statute of Monopolies in 1624. In the EPO, amendment during opposition is granted almost as of right and the amended claims are considered in a further stage of the proceedings. It would be a public benefit if USPTO policy moved closer to that prevailing over here.

Thanks for noting "a total of [only] 118 motions [to change attacked claims] filed in 1,539 instituted and completed AIA proceedings." [Thus excluding stats on all more recently filed IPRs.] More attempted motions are needed to see if the pressure on the PTO for increases in granted motions has now improved their odds [if timely filed]. For that to occur, more patent owners need to face reality sooner as to those claims that they are clearly going to lose if not amended in view of prior art they have had time to review since the petition was first filed.

It looks like this was granted because it essentially only cancels claims, which is a limited circumstance. Nevertheless, it was useful to the patentee.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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