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


« Suspending IP Protection: A Bad Idea (That Won't Achieve Its Desired Goals) | Main | FCBA Remote Program on Patent Office Perspective »

April 28, 2021


Narcan is a strange one. That should have years of patent life left.

The reason it is expiring is because the patents were invalidated in ANDA litigation. The strange bit is that Teva both (1) petitioned for IPR; and (2) asserted obviousness as an affirmative defense in the district court. The PTAB upheld the patents, but the district court invalidated them.

So much for the idea of the PTAB as a "death panel."

Mr. DeLassus,

I am not clear why you are in such a hurry to use a single outlier as irrefutable proof that the notion of the PTAB as being a "death panel" is in error.

Then again, I see the general tone of your posts, and yes, I can see why you would be in such a hurry.

Me? I remain:

I'm confused about Teva, was the art the same in the IPR and DCT? Was Teva not estopped once the IPR decision came down?

Like skeptical, I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from the fact that in a single instance, the IPR and DCT proceedings came out differently. Just playing the numbers, I figure that has to happen at least occasionally. But it would be interesting for sure to survey how often the IPR and DCT ended up disagreeing.

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