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

« Clause 8 Offers New Online Video Series -- First Interview with Judge Paul Michel | Main | Webinar on Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics »

April 27, 2017

Comments

Hey Kevin,

Like Andrew's post on the "patent dance," your post on "when does biosimilar marking start" portion of this oral argument is excellent and thorough. Calling the biosimilar provisions of the ACA Byzantine in its complexity" is an understatement-the oral argument just underscores the lousy job Congress did in drafting this portion of the ACA specifically and the ACA generally.

Over at the scotusblog, John Duffy speculates that this case might be dismissed as improvidently granted. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-analysis-supreme-court-struggles-acas-patent-provisions/#more-255371

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 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