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

« Biotech/Pharma Docket | Main | Biosimilars Conference »

September 16, 2010

Comments

So there was someone injured by that tomfoolery we were talking about the other day. Big surprise. Tomfoolery in our courts leads to this kind of thing. Truly stunning that the PTO cannot be bothered to help our country out by ensuring fair and just application of the law.

Well, 6, maybe they were injured. We'll have to take their word for that.

I wouldn't be down on the Office, though. It was the determination of Judge Hilton (on both the substance and the procedure), and like it or not judges are the people we give this kind of discretion, to make these decisions.

As for the Solicitor General, her decision is whether the Federal Circuit would agree with Judge Hilton. If she thinks the answer is yes, she won't pursue it.

I think the most telling part of the story is the $1M a day MDCO makes on Angiomax. Whether they are entitled to it or not, it is clear what they want to do - get some of that money. So I'm not sure APP is on the side of the angels, either.

Thanks for the comment.

"and like it or not judges are the people we give this kind of discretion, to make these decisions."

Sure, but we also have appeals judges to overrule them when they engage in tomfoolery as here. And we usually have a system so that those people who are harmed by the decision can then go and have the decision overturned. Do they have any remedy here?

Perhaps they could still get their thing they need and just start making the drug then wait for the infringement suit? What then?

I guess you can't appeal the failure of a motion like this can you?

"So I'm not sure APP is on the side of the angels, either."

No, they're on the side of the law.

A real shame we can't have the law applied in this hea country. I mean, it is one thing for the legislature to forget to make a law or have failed to. But it is another thing entirely when there blatantly is a law that is then summarily ignored in the courts.

This is complete malarky, I want to see if APP comes up with something else to do to fight this.

Oh well, I have a date with a gorgeous girl tomorrow so I'm not exactly all that concerned with this nonsense at the moment. I've got like a bazillion things to do tomorrow.


Interestingly the Federal Circuit denied Medicines motions to dismiss and to stay/bifurcate on Feb 2. It now appears the appeals court will hear the substantive patent extension argument (as well as the standing argument). APPs opening brief is due Mar 4. Any thoughts on why it took the motions panel over 3 months to issue an order.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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