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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


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

« PTAB Life Sciences Report | Main | Science Application International Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018) »

February 06, 2018

Comments

What a crock. Judges Dyk and O'Malley say, "You didn't challenge the PTO's authority to promulgate the regulation at issue, so we can't pass judgment on the propriety of the regulation." They both then say, the PTAB properly interpreted the reg, with O'Malley adding, "If it were up to me, I would rule that the reg was improperly promulgated and/or ultra vires." Judge Newman simply says, "If the patentee disclaims the claims before institution of the IPR, there's nothing to have an IPR on."

So two of the three judges agree this "proceeding" should never have made it to the PTAB's desk and the PTAB wasn't authorized to issue its "ruling", yet that "ruling" stands in place and Arthrex is precluded from pursuing similar claims in a continuation application. Ridiculous.

At least Judge O'Malley has made it clear to the next patentee who disclaims claims to avoid an IPR that it should challenge the director's authority to promulgate the regs at issue. Small consolation for Arthrex, though. And there's no guarantee the Judge O'Malley will be on that panel.

But is it really true that one could otherwise obtain valid claims in a continuation that are not patentably distinct from expressly disclaimed claims in a parent application?

Mr. Morgan,

I am thinking that you are misunderstanding the nature of what is being disclaimed.

The disclaimer (as I understand it - I provide that it may be I that misunderstand the situation) is related to what the patent holder is seeking to enforce against a particular party, rather than a disclaimer that the claims themselves are invalid against all parties.

Skeptical [Anon?] see 35 USC 253 "Disclaimer."

Mr. Morgan,

Thank you, that was most helpful.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

February 2018

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