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


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Fish & Richardson Catches Error in Patent Office's PTA Calculation | Main | ACI Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Lifecycles Conference »

July 30, 2009


It appears that following the minority "opinion" in Metabolite that a 101 challenge would be the best against this claim. Other than cost, why did the third party requester seek the ex parte reexam rather than a direct challenge?

Dear saddle:

I suspect either 1) this was Labcorp under another guise,or 2) it was someone who either wasn't infringing (yet) or didn't have sufficient cause to file a declaratory judgment action. I have no additional knowledge, however.

Thanks for the comment.


Very interesting case. And sorry we didn't get a chance to chat in Madison.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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