- Kate Gaudry & Thomas Franklin: The AIA’s First-To File Transition SHOULD Have Resulted In More Provisional Filings
- Lorelei Laird: Do Memes Violate Copyright Law?
- Hean Koo & James Gatto: Federal Circuit Is In Sync With Patent’s Validity Under Section 101
- Oona Johnstone: Generics Go Three For Three At The PTAB In Multiple Sclerosis Blockbuster Dispute
- Cuba, US Hold First Talks On Intellectual Property
Get a Job doing Patent Law
Of this diminishing value for patents: “That’s also great news…”
Right. Because they’re absurdly over-valued.
Is that what you tell your “clients”…?
Re; “The AIA’s First-To File Transition SHOULD Have Resulted In More Provisional Filings.”
This is an interesting observation no one else seems to have made. Especially considering that when the AIA legislation was being considered the extensive IPR and other provisions were largely ignored and almost all the commentary related to the “first inventor to file” provisions of the AIA. That was allegedly going to force everyone to file rush incomplete provisionals. [Based on the widespread myth that before the AIA applications filed later than others could be easily salvaged [in the U.S. only] by prior conception allegations in Rule 131 declarations or interferences.] It did not happen.
Paul thanks. You have aroused my interest in the piece on provisionals.
It is the UK that created the notion of a “provisional”, about a hundred years ago. It doesn’t fit in today’s ever-smaller First to File world though. I must now check out whether the authors of the piece agree with me on that.
These IPR decisions highlight the usefulness of post-grant proceedings for generic and biosimilar manufacturers, particularly for challenging follow-on patents, such as those covering specific dose regimens …
All three patents contained claims directed to methods of treating multiple sclerosis by administering three 40 mg injections of Copaxone® over seven days. The Board found this dose regimen was obvious over prior art that disclosed administering 40 mg doses of Copaxone® every other day, corresponding to one additional injection every two weeks compared to the claimed dose regimen.
This perfectly correct and desirable result is exacttly why IPRs are here to stay.
Without a doubt, IPRs are diminishing the value of patents and the value of patent litigators. That’s also great news for everyone except for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of people who already have plenty of money already or who are in a great position to find something more productive to do with their lives (or both).
Get into a profession in which you can believe in the work product you (supposedly) produce.
Back to the anti-patent system rhetoric. EFF employee? EFF employee.
Malcolm, given that a patent enjoys a presumption of validity in court and not in the patent office during an IPR, you perceive, in any way, why a generic might want to bypass Hatch Waxman?
I can fully understand why the pharmaceutical industry is so desperately trying to exclude itself from IPRs. They do not perceive stripping patents of their presumption of validity as a positive development of the AIA.
What on earth does “the presumption of validity” have to do with the invalidity of incredibly junky patents like these (and the reams of similar “drug evergreening” patents just like them)?
The answer is nothing, unless you want to admit that the Federal courts are completely incapable of delivering justice (i.e., invalidating patents) to defendants (or potential defendants).
In a close case, the presumption might be a difference. But given the incredible amount of junk that has been pushed through the PTO over the past decade or two — a cycle that only encourages more junk to be filed — the fact is that most issues presented by granted patents aren’t close at all. The tr0lls figured this out years ago.
the pharmaceutical industry is so desperately trying to exclude itself from IPRs
LOL
That’s not going to happen. And “the pharmaceutical industry” doesn’t need more protection. Everybody knows that. Maybe the industry should learn how to actually make and sell worthwhile products instead of hiring criminals and con artists whose only talents are finding loopholes in the law and evading taxes.
LOL _ if you think it just doesn’t matter, then why are you not pushing for that presumption to remain in the IPR realm and just be done with it?
Oh yeah – because you are really just anti-patent.
“. They do not perceive stripping patents of their presumption of validity as a positive development of the AIA.”
Exactly when is that stick from the bundle of property rights taken, Ned?
“This perfectly correct and desirable result is exacttly why IPRs are here to stay.”
All Ends and no Means…
“Without a doubt, IPRs are diminishing the value of patents and the value of patent litigators.”
So anti-patent….
AS Paul Morgan and I were discussing, normalizing litigation by the number of claims possible to be litigated would likely show that the litigation “b00gyman” is less than a half percent of possible claims (and is most likely trending downward anayway, when one takes away the AIA smokescreen artificially inflating numbers).
What you are left with, in a tail of a flea wagging the dog scenario, is a purposeful devaluing of more than 99% of something based on the pearl clutching FUD.
And of course, Malcolm thinks this is a great thing, because of how he feels that this 99% should be characterized (you know, G-g-g-grifters and all).
One readily sees his propaganda exposed with his most favorite rhetorical meme of AccuseOthers at play and his “tiny tiny tiny fraction” along with his refusal to even discuss his duplicitous stand on the best way for the NON-rich to partake in the innovation reward process (software).
“Without a doubt, IPRs are diminishing the value of patents and the value of patent litigators.”
So anti-patent….
Observing a fact about the patent system isn’t “anti-patent.”
But go ahead and cry me a river about patent attorneys not getting paid enough. You’re a super serious person!
You kind of missed the point in the rest of what you said:
Of this diminishing value for patents: “That’s also great news…”
Oopsie for you.
Comments are closed.