Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (2026)
- Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- PTAB Reverses § 101 Rejection Where Examiner Failed to Follow the Office’s Own Guidance
- Collision Communications v. Samsung: What Good Did the Government’s Statement of Interest Do?
about
Month: March 2009
-
By Christopher P. Singer — On March 24, 2009, the Senate unanimously confirmed Gary Locke (at right) as the 36th Secretary of Commerce. While Secretary Locke obviously has a number of critical economic issues that require his immediate attention, the Department of Commerce also oversees the expansion of the country's broadband infrastructure (including the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — "Monopoly" is a loaded buzzword when it comes to patents. It is imprecise, indeed incorrect, but it can be effective in appealing to prejudices that emphasize a negative view of patent rights. It also effectively telegraphs the writer's own prejudices, so that when it is used in the title…
-
By Christopher P. Singer — In the wake of the Federal Circuit's decision in Tafas v. Doll (see "Tafas v. Doll (Fed. Cir. 2009)"; "Federal Circuit Issues Decision in Tafas v. Doll"; and "Anyone Remember What These 'New Rules' Are All About?"), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office posted an announcement clarifying that it has no immediate plans…
-
By Suresh Pillai — Settlement Announced in SOLODYN® Patent Dispute Last week, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. entered into a settlement agreement that effectively ends a dispute between the two companies over the patent family covering SOLODYN® (minocycline HCL, used to treat acne) Extended Release Tablets. Medicis' initial complaint, which was…
-
By Donald Zuhn — The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Tafas v. Doll, in which the CAFC found that new Rule 265 — which creates the dreaded Examination Support Document (ESD) — was both procedural and not inconsistent with the Patent Act (see "Tafas v. Doll (Fed. Cir. 2009)"), and the introduction last week…
-
By Donald Zuhn — On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Tafas v. Doll (formerly Tafas v. Dudas). The Tafas appeal concerns the validity of four rules in the continuation and claims rules package promulgated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 21, 2007. The four rules at issue are: …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — It has been quite some time since most in the patent community have given much thought to the ill-advised "claims and continuation" rules promulgated by the Patent and Trademark Office on August 21, 2007 that were preliminarily enjoined on Halloween, 2007 (one day before they were to go into…
-
By Sherri Oslick — About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases, and a few interesting cases will be selected for periodic monitoring. Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.2:09-cv-01233; filed March 18, 2009 in the District Court of New Jersey…
-
March 23-24, 2009 – 3rd Annual Patent Law Institute (Practising Law Institute) – San Francisco, CA March 24, 2009 – 5th Annual Document Management, E-Discovery, and Litigation Readiness for Life Sciences (American Conference Institute) – New York, NY March 25-27, 2009 – Intellectual Property Counsels' Committee Spring Conference & Meeting (Biotechnology Industry Organization) – Phoenix,…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In a 55-page opinion issued earlier today, the Federal Circuit determined that the four rules at issue in Tafas v. Dudas are procedural, but that Rule 78 is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. § 120 (i.e., that portion of the rule which limits the number of continuation applications), and therefore, affirmed-in-part,…
Patent Docs 