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

« ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Main | Deloitte White Paper Points to Recession as Turning Point for Life Sciences Industry; Indicates That Survival Will Depend on Innovation »

May 04, 2010

Comments

"2) That Avid attempted to file the '326 patent application in advance of the 102(b) date, i.e., within one year after its first sales, but failed, and"

EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How you could possibly fail to write a few sentences on a sheet of paper, file out a few forms and send it in is entirely beyond me.

I note that I still haven't filled out my census...

Even worse, if this really was a case of first impression, the all subsequent *panels* are bound by its decision unless and until overturned by an en banc panel or by the SCOTUS. Not that later panels necessarily follow ealier panel decisions of first impression, or even en banc decisions - witness the wholesale abandonment of Kingsdown. Here, if a subsequent panel deviates, it will mean a dumb decision has been ignored, but it will also reduce legal predictability. So by getting this one wrong the panel in essence struck out twice.

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