Kyle Bass files two more IPRs against drug patents on April 23, 2015
On April 23, 2015, Kyle Bass filed IPRs against a patent on Shire's Gattex and against a patent on Celgene's Thalomid.
In covering this in the post Bass Expands Drug Patent Fight as Celgene, Shire Make Five , Bloomberg made some statements which require clarification.
As to the text --Bass said he’s not targeting the entire drug industry and won’t accept settlement payments in order to drop the challenges --, the Engellener article [below] notes that in the first year, only 8% of IPRs resulted in settlements.
As to the text --The Inter Partes Review was created as a quick and relatively inexpensive way for technology companies and retailers to deal with so-called patent trolls --, one notes that the Engellener article places costs for an IPR at $300-500K, a bit steep for a small retailer taking on a troll alone. Furthermore, an IPR does not resolve infringement, so if the retailer does not invalidate all the asserted claims, the retailer still has a problem.
One separately notes that "inter partes review" was meant to replace the previously existing procedure of "inter partes re-examination."
See AIPLA paper by Tom Engellenner titled Comparison of Federal Court, ITC, and USPTO Proceedings in IP Disputes (Jan. 2014)
***
As background on selling short, see
Trade Secret For being Positioned to Profit When Stocks Fall
In covering this in the post Bass Expands Drug Patent Fight as Celgene, Shire Make Five , Bloomberg made some statements which require clarification.
As to the text --Bass said he’s not targeting the entire drug industry and won’t accept settlement payments in order to drop the challenges --, the Engellener article [below] notes that in the first year, only 8% of IPRs resulted in settlements.
As to the text --The Inter Partes Review was created as a quick and relatively inexpensive way for technology companies and retailers to deal with so-called patent trolls --, one notes that the Engellener article places costs for an IPR at $300-500K, a bit steep for a small retailer taking on a troll alone. Furthermore, an IPR does not resolve infringement, so if the retailer does not invalidate all the asserted claims, the retailer still has a problem.
One separately notes that "inter partes review" was meant to replace the previously existing procedure of "inter partes re-examination."
See AIPLA paper by Tom Engellenner titled Comparison of Federal Court, ITC, and USPTO Proceedings in IP Disputes (Jan. 2014)
***
As background on selling short, see
Trade Secret For being Positioned to Profit When Stocks Fall
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home