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

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

« You Are Going to Hear A Lot More FUD about Patent Law, So Here Are Some Facts | Main | Axonics, Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023) »

July 09, 2023

Comments

I don't see the problem with this decision (or Amgen). Any of these "wherein effect X is obtained" claims in the pharma space are devoid of innovative value; they're either inherent (it happens whenever you administer the API) or indefinite per se (it only happens in some compositions, and we have no idea which ones, other than the one we made). MOT claims are NOT devoid of innovative value, and arguably disclose the most critical efforts the patentee has made.

It would be clearer for everyone if 112 pinned patentees closer to their disclosure, and DOE could mop up any near misses as appropriate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 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
30