Possible cert grant in Integra v. Merck [?]
The "patently obvious" blog of Dennis Crouch noted:
-->Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court took a step toward accepting Merck's petition of writ of certiorari by inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the U.S. Government.<--
The June 2003 case of Integra v. Merck related to the interpretation of text in 271(e)(1) concerning --reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA--. In part, the case reflected divergences in world view between Judge Rader and Judge Newman.
Footnote 2 of the Rader opinion brings up discussion of the Madey v. Duke University case (307 F.3d 1351 (CAFC 2002)) and of de minimis infringement matters.
An important issue in the Integra case was the interpretation of 271(e)(1) in light of, among other things, Intermedics v. Ventritex.[991 F2d 808]
Footnote 4 of the case discusses research tools.
-->Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court took a step toward accepting Merck's petition of writ of certiorari by inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the U.S. Government.<--
The June 2003 case of Integra v. Merck related to the interpretation of text in 271(e)(1) concerning --reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA--. In part, the case reflected divergences in world view between Judge Rader and Judge Newman.
Footnote 2 of the Rader opinion brings up discussion of the Madey v. Duke University case (307 F.3d 1351 (CAFC 2002)) and of de minimis infringement matters.
An important issue in the Integra case was the interpretation of 271(e)(1) in light of, among other things, Intermedics v. Ventritex.[991 F2d 808]
Footnote 4 of the case discusses research tools.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home