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

« Supreme Court Preview -- Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. -- 180 Day Notice of Commercial Marketing Provisions of BPCIA | Main | Clause 8 Offers New Online Video Series -- First Interview with Judge Paul Michel »

April 26, 2017

Comments

Hey Andrew,

A great post on the "patent dance" portions of the SCOTUS oral argument, as well as the "state claim" issues lurking below the surface. What you say just confirms what I said on Kevin's post-Congress did a miserable writing the biosimilars provisions, especially as to what remedy the patent owner has when the biosimilars applicant fails to disclose information required for the patent owner to determine, if any patents, are in play, and even the SCOTUS Justices recognized that.

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