AP covers injunction against USPTO rules
Stuart Weinberg had an AP piece on the injunction issued against implementation of the USPTO rules on continuing applications, which article included the text:
"It's a good day for innovators in this country because the new rules would have stifled innovation," GlaxoSmith-Kline's lawyer, John Desmarais, told Dow Jones Newswires.
(...)
A Patent and Trademark Office spokeswoman, Brigid Quinn, said in an e-mailed statement that the proposed rules "are part of a package of initiatives designed to improve the quality and efficiency of the patent process and move American innovation and our economy forward."
(...)
The Patent and Trademark Office will also file a motion arguing against a permanent injunction and for the rules to be implemented, he said. The case will likely be argued early next year.
***Coverage by 271blog
The 271blog discussed the analysis by ED Va of the issues in the case. This included Chevron:
GSK first argued that they will succeed on the merits because the PTO lacks the authority to promulgate substantive rules and therefore the PTO’s interpretation of the Patent Act is not owed Chevron deference. Instead, under Adams Fruit, the PTO is entitled no deference, since Section 2(b)(2) of title 35 does not vest the PTO with any substantive rulemaking power.
On the issue of retroactivity:
Here, GSK made a clever move: instead of arguing that rights in patent applications were threatened, GSK argued that rights in trade secrets were threatened, since these potential secrets were sacrificed in the act of filing a patent application (this was also argued in the AIPLA amicus brief).
****
Patentdocs has a post titled Post-GSK: Where Do We Go from Here? - Tailoring Protection and Examination
"It's a good day for innovators in this country because the new rules would have stifled innovation," GlaxoSmith-Kline's lawyer, John Desmarais, told Dow Jones Newswires.
(...)
A Patent and Trademark Office spokeswoman, Brigid Quinn, said in an e-mailed statement that the proposed rules "are part of a package of initiatives designed to improve the quality and efficiency of the patent process and move American innovation and our economy forward."
(...)
The Patent and Trademark Office will also file a motion arguing against a permanent injunction and for the rules to be implemented, he said. The case will likely be argued early next year.
***Coverage by 271blog
The 271blog discussed the analysis by ED Va of the issues in the case. This included Chevron:
GSK first argued that they will succeed on the merits because the PTO lacks the authority to promulgate substantive rules and therefore the PTO’s interpretation of the Patent Act is not owed Chevron deference. Instead, under Adams Fruit, the PTO is entitled no deference, since Section 2(b)(2) of title 35 does not vest the PTO with any substantive rulemaking power.
On the issue of retroactivity:
Here, GSK made a clever move: instead of arguing that rights in patent applications were threatened, GSK argued that rights in trade secrets were threatened, since these potential secrets were sacrificed in the act of filing a patent application (this was also argued in the AIPLA amicus brief).
****
Patentdocs has a post titled Post-GSK: Where Do We Go from Here? - Tailoring Protection and Examination
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 7:18 AM
1 Comments:
Will be interesting to see what the next round of fee increases looks like. Especially the fees that kick in at the 6th independent, the 26th dependent and the 3d continuation/CIP.
Post a Comment
<< Home