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

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

« Reaction to Senate Patent Reform Bill (S. 23) | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

February 10, 2011

Comments

A pity that Watson apparently paid off the false marking trolls. No one was prejudiced by the mis-marking - any pharmaceutical company that's going to make a copy of an existing drug is going to look elsewhere (like the FDA' Orange Book and independent database searches), not at the drug package, to determine if there are patents with which they need to concern themselves. Yet another example of why repeal of the false marking statute is necessary.

Why not just follow the law Dan?

Choosing to mark carries both benefits and burdens. This is not an unknown area, notwithstanding the actual enforcement.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2022

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