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.

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

« In re '318 Patent Infringement Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2009) | Main | USPTO Proposes Changes to Count System »

September 30, 2009

Comments

Stories like this are the reason I read this blog. Thanks, Kevin. I couldn't agree more with your concluding paragraph, as this is now one of several cases involving biologically produced drugs in which patent protection presently extends well beyond 20 years. The deficiencies of the old 17-years-from-grant system should be ignored in considering follow-on biologics legislation...but you can be sure that proponents of a shorter wait period will trot out the '755 patent as the latest example of how the system is broken.

Thanks Kevin,
This news is really surprising and even break lot of generic manufacture heart, because of 13 year extension and that inevitably increase the monopoly of Biogen.
However Extension of patent term is common in US patent law. In addition most of Biotech products patent expiry more than 20 years as patent attorneys were so sagacious and had made the most of 17 year rule and deliberately filed application around 8 June 1995 and that result in extension of the protection.
While the patent is given for benefit of society and the present Avonex case explicitly violate the patent fundamental.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2020

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