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 | Supreme Court Oral Argument in FTC v. Actavis »

March 31, 2013


A most unfortunate decision, based on a mistaken belief that there's an expectation of success ("likely practical benefits") in resolving a compound into its enantiomers. There's certainly an expectation of different results, and a chemist expects to succeed in acomplishing the resolution, but - unless you're working within a well-understood family of drugs - nobody "expects" the pharmacological results. You try it, and you see what happens.

This isn't a case of "over-reliance" on the obvious to try test -- resolution of enantiomers is the very epitome of obvious to try.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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