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

Patent Law

: IPBiz

How significant was the PubPat wiff on re-exam of US 7,029,913?

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

The loss by PubPat and ConsumerWatchdog (then FTCR) in the inter partes re-exam of WARF's US Pat. 7,029,913 is seen as even more inept when viewed against the statistics of inter partes re-examination.

Andrew S. Baluch and Stephen B. Maebius of Foley point out that inter partes re-examination proceedings displayed a high 73% ?kill? rate (complete elimination of all claims targeted by the requesters). Dan Ravicher and John Simpson had a 0% kill rate in the re-exam of US 7,029,913. The prior art they mustered was deemed non-enabling and the declarations they presented were conclusionary. Artie Rai is connected to PubPat. Artie Rai is presenting Barack Obama's view on patents in Colorado.

One surmises that Eli Kintisch won't be discussing this exercise in futility in Science. Nor the impending failure of PubPat's appeal of the inter partes re-exam loss.

See also

PubPat, FTCR lose in inter partes re-exam of WARF stem cell patent

"Consumer Watchdog" gets it wrong, again

FTCR changes its name after stem cell defeat

***Otherwise

Simpson has been dogging some of the secretive practices of CIRM. On August 22, there was a report concerning failed grant applications of commercial entities at CIRM:

Today on his blog, [Simpson] disclosed the names of 18 companies that were looking for grants from CIRM. Only one, Novocell, eventually received a grant, despite oft-expressed desires by some CIRM directors that California companies should receive the benefit of state financing.

Simpson noted that some rejected business applicants have complained about CIRM's review process, contending that it "is skewed towards academic science." Some CIRM directors have also questioned the approach of its scientific reviewers, saying that they may overlook worthwhile efforts that are heavily focused on bringing cures into the hospital. Simpson suggested that the companies he identified might want to get together and talk.

One notes that the declarations used in ConsumerWatchDog's failed re-exam attempt were all from academics, with these declarations going down in flames at the USPTO.

Full post as published by IPBiz on August 23, 2008 (boomark / email).