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


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Court Report | Main | FTC Asks Supreme Court to Play Favorites in Reverse Payment Settlement Agreement Cases »

October 15, 2012


"Judge Newman pointed out the "panoply of biological and clinical evaluations" needed to bring an effective and safe drug to market, and the "millions of dollars" consumed to obtain regulatory approval. She noted that bringing a drug to market required a "heavy risk-laden investment," one which the defendants were now trying to enjoy with no cost or risk of failure. The problem with this analysis is that this criticism applies in every ANDA case, and therefore following this logic, an NDA holder would always get a preliminary injunction to maintain its exclusive rights until at least the conclusion of litigation."

Judge Newman sometimes comes across as a simple-minded, patent-loving hack. Other times she comes across merely as a patent-loving hack.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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