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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« OMB Receives Second Letter Criticizing Proposed IDS Rule | Main | More on Second Letter to OMB Criticizing the IDS Rule »

October 24, 2007

Comments

Thank you for posting the PDF of Manbeck's declaration. I personally was disappointed in Manbeck not relating how a Commissioner of the USPTO is sworn in (I assume they are, aren't they?) to uphold "the law" and what that means with regard to "facilitating" the processing of patents and how the new reg's do just the opposite.

I'm not a litigator, and I know this *is* litigation, but if the PTO was really acting in good faith in implementing these rules and acting in the public interest, would they really move to strike a declaration like this? Wouldn't they instead explain clearly to the court why the rules were correct, well-founded, etc., rather than resorting to the tactics and technicalities of litigation to win their case? It just appears to me to be further evidence that the PTO is not acting in the public interest, and instead is intent on carrying out its own perplexing agenda no matter what the cost.

Just as a heads up, the court ORDERED that all references to Mr. Manbeck's declaration be removed from GSK's exhibits.

Dear Just:

That's not up on PACER yet, but if true it does not bode well for GSK. Did the Court give any basis for its ruling?

Thanks for the comment.

If that is in fact the ruling it may only be a partial preclusion to prevent Manbeck from providing impermissible expert opinion as to the proper interpretation of the patent statutes, which is the exclusive province of the court -- Evidence 101. Will be interesting to see and hope all eggs are not in this one basket.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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