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

« Ariad Files Petition for Rehearing in Ariad v. Lilly | Main | Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009) »

June 03, 2009

Comments

Finally! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for bringing up the absurdity of 75(b)!!!

....but 75(b) doesn't give the PTO "the right" to withhold a patent....It REQUIRES that the patent be withheld.

Do we know if GSK or the PTO filed a petition? The due date was yesterday, wasn't it?

T:

GSK also filed a petition for rehearing yesterday, but not surprisingly, it was not available on PACER last night. I plan to provide a summary of GSK's petition tonight.

Don

I read the article thinking there was going to be something, anything, with some basis to it. Aye yai yai.

"This standard suggests that a PTO rule with any procedural aspect cannot be struck down as "substantive" unless it eviscerates applicants' ability to successfully prosecute patent applications or utterly forecloses applicants' ability to obtain the patent rights to which they are entitled."

I mean seriously guys. At least try to not spew nonsense in your brief. This should be professional work.

The decision implies nothing of the sort of thing stated above. It "implies" simply that procedural rules do not magically become substantive simply because it makes things difficult for you at the office, no matter how difficult it makes things for you, so long as you still have plenty of opportunity to do everything correctly. In the case of the rules, you simply do.

This case has less merit than the case from the cancer people.

BTW, GSK also filed brief.

http://1550968521683825857-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/271patentblog/Home/GSK_En_Banc_Petition.pdf?attredirects=1&auth=ANoY7cpKhk1uDl6W-BMZVjd5ZuCSKmMEh2vFzADNCrq0kL_xWX6uQpwSUAbudWTHAiQ2qWZlDHRV_548rkXG3T3RKBIPBU0u3spZq51gSmitioJnWDwzVcUPTklOa5oNGC0VLhlzuF7vNwdHmb3qbdPuxmZfTMt8ukp4OjGVojwem1M44Bpxm9rcB8vE31q-UbhIKhDho4G1vIFqGZwDuwuuqeEoXo0s_1HYu_RtYh_vOcYYUGSOzXw%3D

I hope they both get denied en banc rehearing just so I can have some lolz.

6 has a point; the largely similar GSK and Tafas petitions make about as much sense as the winning briefs they filed before Judge Cacheris in the district court

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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