Preliminary Injunction Order

Text of the Preliminary Injunction order from Judge Cacheris:

4) Defendants [USPTO & Director Jon Dudas] are preliminarily enjoined from implementing the Final Rules titled “Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Failings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications”;

5) Defendants are preliminary enjoined from issuing new regulations restricting the number of continuing applications, the number of requests for continued examination, and the number of claims that may be filed with the PTO;

6) This Order shall expire upon the entry of a final judgment in this matter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

5 thoughts on “Preliminary Injunction Order

  1. 4

    ‘me’ – here on Dennis’ site is the new wording of MPEP 706.02(j), which says:

    “Since issued patents are presumed valid (35 U.S.C. 282) and constitute a property right (35 U.S.C. 261), the written record must be clear as to the basis for the grant.”

    So they have just put this in the MPEP and argued in court at the same time that patents are not a property right? Par of the course, I suppose!

  2. 3

    Interesting dates Oct 16 – I note that in the transaction page of my PAIR that on Oct 15 my applications of concern were flagged for 25/5 – but on Oct 17 the flag was removed. Perhaps the PTO knew the result? I think discovery will prove very illuminating as to our adminstrative agency’s views of its patent bar.

  3. 2

    The District Judge issued a 39-page Memorandum Opinion around 5:00 pm this afternoon. This Opinion wasn’t written “after lunch” and, not uncommonly, oral argument counts for little, if anything.

    In all likelihood, when the Court granted the PTO’s motion of October 16, 2007, to delay the hearing on GSK’s preliminary injunction motion from October 26th to October 31st – knowing that GSK would have little time to seek relief from the Federal Circuit if its preliminary injuntion motion was denied AND knowing that the original October 26th hearing date was “agreed” to by the PTO, after GSK indicated that it preferred a hearing on October 19th – the District Court, having had the Tafas v. Dudas case since August 22nd, had already decided to grant GSK’s motion for a preliminary injunction, absent some extraordinary argument not apparent from either Tajas or GSK’s earlier filings.

    That said, I cannot readily imagine what the PTO could have said today, nor what it can now say, to alter the evitable final judgment to come in the District Court!

  4. 1

    Congrats to K and E!

    Qusetion – I was there – why did you let the PTO get away with the argument that patent applications do not have any property rights? They do, on at least two arguments.

Comments are closed.