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

« New York Times to Innovation: Drop Dead | Main | PLI Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop »

May 01, 2008

Comments

Don, as I recall the Fed Circuit invalidated claim 6, the asserted claim, of the '995 patent for improper dependency, but didn't invalidate the whole patent. I'm glad to see, however, that the '893 patent survived reexam - this was the first patent covering atorvastatin, and say what you might about follow-on patents (like the '995 directed to the enantiomeric calcium salt, or the later patents on crystalline forms of atorvastatin), Pfizer certainly deserved this one. But I guess with $10B+ per year at stake, Ranbaxy thought it was worthwhile to tilt at this windmill.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 30 31