October 31, 2007
Today will be an interesting day in the world of patent rule changes. In the case we are all watching (consolidated cases of Tafas and SmithKlineBeecham (d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline) vs. Jon Dudas and the USPTO), the not-so-long awaited temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction hearing will occur this morning at 10:00 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Virginia. Will the new patent rules go into effect tomorrow or will the TRO be granted? We’ll have to wait and see.
A number of my fellow bloggers have followed this case step by step and have provided us with some excellent references and commentary. The following is a brief summary of references I have used as I have followed this particular case.
IPWatchdog, a blog run by Gene Quinn of White & Quinn, P.C., has provided us all with a concise list of most, if not all, of the documents filed in the case. Gene has set up a separate blog page for this case (link HERE), including the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction, the Motion for Continuance by the USPTO, GlaxoSmithKline’s Response, and the Order Granting the Motion for Continuance, among others.
The Patent Docs, a consortium of patent attorneys from McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP holding doctorate degrees in an array of sciences, started following this case soon after the original complaint was filed, and about a week ago provided us with a good summary (link HERE) about the case to date. In the summary, the Patent Docs discussed the declaration filed by Harry Manbeck, Jr., discussing the various types of authority for rule making and a detailed history of continuation practice. Kevin Noonan (one of the Patent Docs) also recognized Gene Quinn (in a post available HERE) in a recent post letting us know that the temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction hearing will occur this morning at 10:00.
Dennis Crouch, the author of my favorite IP blog (Patently-O), has also followed the developments in this case. Last week Dennis wrote a good summary of the AIPLA’s position in the case, noting that the AIPLA filed an Amicus brief in support of GSK’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dennis also provided us with copies of declarations from David Kappos (IBM counsel) and Burt Magen (representing SanDisk Corporation) referencing how those two practitioners feel the rule changes will impact their respective clients’ patent portfolios. Dennis also provided us with links to Tafas’s Reply to Defendant’s Memorandum in Oppositon and in Further Support of Entry of Preliminary Injunction and GSK’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in a recent post (link HERE).
I’m sure there are a number of other bloggers out there who are following this case, and if you are one of them, kudos to you. Send me a note sometime – I’d love to hear from you.
A number of my fellow bloggers have followed this case step by step and have provided us with some excellent references and commentary. The following is a brief summary of references I have used as I have followed this particular case.
IPWatchdog, a blog run by Gene Quinn of White & Quinn, P.C., has provided us all with a concise list of most, if not all, of the documents filed in the case. Gene has set up a separate blog page for this case (link HERE), including the Complaint, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction, the Motion for Continuance by the USPTO, GlaxoSmithKline’s Response, and the Order Granting the Motion for Continuance, among others.
The Patent Docs, a consortium of patent attorneys from McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP holding doctorate degrees in an array of sciences, started following this case soon after the original complaint was filed, and about a week ago provided us with a good summary (link HERE) about the case to date. In the summary, the Patent Docs discussed the declaration filed by Harry Manbeck, Jr., discussing the various types of authority for rule making and a detailed history of continuation practice. Kevin Noonan (one of the Patent Docs) also recognized Gene Quinn (in a post available HERE) in a recent post letting us know that the temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction hearing will occur this morning at 10:00.
Dennis Crouch, the author of my favorite IP blog (Patently-O), has also followed the developments in this case. Last week Dennis wrote a good summary of the AIPLA’s position in the case, noting that the AIPLA filed an Amicus brief in support of GSK’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dennis also provided us with copies of declarations from David Kappos (IBM counsel) and Burt Magen (representing SanDisk Corporation) referencing how those two practitioners feel the rule changes will impact their respective clients’ patent portfolios. Dennis also provided us with links to Tafas’s Reply to Defendant’s Memorandum in Oppositon and in Further Support of Entry of Preliminary Injunction and GSK’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in a recent post (link HERE).
I’m sure there are a number of other bloggers out there who are following this case, and if you are one of them, kudos to you. Send me a note sometime – I’d love to hear from you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment