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

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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Alnylam Announces Grant of German RNAi Patent | Main | GSK to Acquire Reliant Pharmaceuticals »

November 27, 2007

Comments

Kevin,

Very interesting perspective on the discovery denial, including the possibility that the PTO has "no documents" to provide, thus creating a prima facie APA violation. I suspect that GSK/Tafas were prepared for this eventuality and have an argument ready to go forward with. Could be that the PTO wins this minor battle but potentially loses the war by asserting this deliberative process privilege. Cacheris can't ignore that if the PTO fought so hard against this motion that there must be something in the PTO's files that they don't want to share (although that could come out in the FOIA request). And you're right about the Grinch stealing Christmas from the PTO lawyers that will have to prepare their response during the holidays (and will get no sympathy from Cacheris).

I'm starting to wonder if the new rules aren't just a continuation (no pun intended) of the corruption we began seeing (that continues to manifest itself through the reexams) in the NTP v. RIM case... and that this may all be about politics and political money at its core (BlackberryGate) with Pharma/Bio just being caught in the cross-fire as an innocent bystander:

http://www.blackberrygate.com/wiki/index.php?title=Insider_Email_Proves_Illegal_Meeting

Wouldn't it be a strange twist if no one in upper management at the USPTO actually gives a hoot about the backlog.

Hopefully this just means Cacheris has really already decided so there is no need to drag it out...we can hope.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2023

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