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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

May 10, 2020

Comments

Readers are referred to the CIPA brief filed in the Athena case and to the fact that the categorical exclusion identified by the CAFC for methods of diagnosis places the US in clear violation of the TRIPS Agreement. While this is not a matter that individuals can take up, it is a matter that other governments might well take up in reply to any US initiative, and it is a matter that should be of concern to the present US administration. Respect for a US-initiated treaty by other countries cannot be counted on if the US itself does not respect it.

I write as an alumnus of Oxford University, twice insulted by the CAFC, firstly in Ariosa and secondly in Athena, both directed to ground-breaking inventions of major significance. Readers will note that the approach of the US courts has NOT been followed in other countries, notably not in the EPO and not in Australia.

A Watch List without the US at the top of the list is immediately suspect.

Just saying.

Paul and skeptical/anon, these USTR reports are, unfortunately, a tool created by the US to (sometimes erroneously) point to the (alleged) misdeeds of other while conspicuously ignoring its own misdeeds, the current status of diagnostic method claims being chief among those. For that reason, I don't know if anyone outside the US pays attention to these reports.

AM,

I agree that there is likely a high degree of skepticism outside the US on these reports.

Yet, it is still worth noting, here, on a US blog, that the Emperor indeed has no clothes.

Otherwise, the (unsightly) parade may just continue.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

August 2020

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