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
Juristant #4 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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008) | Main | USPTO News: Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program Between U.S. and Danish Patent Offices »

October 29, 2008

Comments

Don, Kevin,

This looks like it might be an interesting article, and I might even read it in the next week, as I'm curious about the approaches district courts have taken since Medimmune. But as a regular reader who enjoys the in-depth but focused nature of your posts, I ask that in the future you please link to articles like this rather than posting the whole text within the blog itself.

Dan:

Thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, linking to the article was not an option since Patent Docs was the first to publish the article. However, I added a break, which should make the article easier to read.

Don

Not to be critical, but only for completeness, there are several CAFC and D.Ct. decisions post-Medimmune that I think weren't discussed. I haven't had a chance to read the full article but a complete discussion would probably require some analysis of at least a few of these:

Caraco v. Forest (CAFC)
Merck v. Apotex (D. Del.)
Cat Tech v. Tubemaster (CAFC)
Eisai v. Mutual (D. NJ)
Impax v. Medicis (N.D. Cal.)
Janssen v. Apotex (CAFC)
Micron v. Mosaid (CAFC)
Prasco v. Medicis (CAFC)

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2019

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