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

« AMP v. USPTO after Bilski v. Kappos | Main | News from Abroad: European Gene Patent Scope Limited by Landmark EU Court Ruling »

July 07, 2010

Comments

Well, the FTC's had it in for pay-for-delay for a while now. Between this amendment (if it passes) and the potential Tamoxifen rehearing, it looks like reverse payment agreements won't be around too much longer. Wonder how long it will take for the In re Cipro ruling to be overturned.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-gets-results-its-clients

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 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