ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patent Baristas

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: Patent Baristas

Patent Rule Injunction, Court To Sleep On It

By Stephen Albainy-Jenei

ADVERTISEMENTS

I realize that everyone is suffering from Patent Reform Fatigue regarding the new rules the Patent Office wants to foist on the public but here is a quick update.

Gene Quinn, at the PLI blog is reporting that the oral hearing on GlaxoSmithKline, Tafas and USPTO cross motions for Summary Judgment was today and that there will be no decision issued today. Judge Cacheris, in the Eastern District of Virginia, decided to take the matter under advisement and render a decision as soon as possible:

According to John White, Judge Cacheris said that “there is a lot of paper to consider” and that he would render his decision as soon as possible, schedule permitting. John also says that the courtroom was “again packed with every seat taken.” Further, John reported that GSK lead off, followed by Tafas and the PTO. It was John’s perspective that the arguments made by the PTO were much better and smoother than at the Preliminary Injunction hearing. Based upon what John heard at the hearing it is his believe that the primary question is whether the PTO has the authority to do what they have done, or in other words whether they have substantive rulemaking. According to John, “if the PTO does have substantive rulemaking Judge Cacheris will have to second guess what the PTO has done, if not then the rules will be dismissed as void and the case then proceeds to the CAFC.”

A pivot point is whether or not the USPTO has substantive rulemaking authority and not just procedural. GSK is arguing that if the proposed new rules are found to be substantive, then they are void and no deference should be given to the Office. The USPTO, meanwhile, is arguing that the USPTO has substantive rulemaking authority and should win either way.  It then argued that the rules are procedural because they are analogous to situations where courts have imposed limits on refiling of cases.

GlaxoSmithKline had filed suit asking the court to enjoin the PTO from implementing the Final Rules contending that they are vague, arbitrary and capricious, and prevent GSK (not to mention everyone else) from fully prosecuting patent applications and obtaining patents on one or more of its inventions. Judge Cacheris granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the USPTO from moving forward with its proposed changes to the patent rules on continuations and claims. 

Download the injunction order here:  GSK Preliminary Injunction Order (pdf)

More here: 

Sides Line Up in Impending Patent Continuations Fight

Is the Public Interest Really Upheld by the New USPTO Rules?

Full post as published by Patent Baristas on February 08, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0125 secs (new cache)