Saturday, July 19, 2008

"Consumer Watchdog" gets it wrong, again

A press release states of the WARF patent re-exam: The PTO examiner narrowed WARF's patent after the two groups requested a re-examination of the patent in July 2006. This NEVER happened. WARF altered some of the claims, not the examiner. This misstatement reminds one of John M. Simpson talking about all those American fighter planes in World War I, planes that didn't exist.

The press release mentioned declarations presented in the re-exam: Joining the two consumer groups in the challenge from the beginning was Dr. Jeanne Loring, now director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Institute. Later in the case Dr. Alan Trounson, then of Australia's Monash University and now president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard and Dr. Chad Cowan of Harvard filed affidavits supporting the challenge. The press release NEGLECTED to mention that all the declarations were dismissed by the USPTO as being conclusionary. No substance!
The press release neglected to mention that the "prior art" cited by PubPat and FTCR was found not enabled by the USPTO.

The notice appeal concerning US 7,029,913 may be viewed. It does not mention the declarations.

Of a story by Terri Somers plumping the press release, one IPBiz reader wrote:

Gee, they just keep lying, hoping their fairy tale will come true.

An attempt at a post on californiastemcellreport was made -->

In the interest of a more complete discussion, please note that the "notice of appeal" pertains ONLY to the third WARF patent, US 7,029,913. There is no challenge on appeal to the other two.

The USPTO had determined that the prior art relied upon by FTCR ("ConsumerWatchdog") was not enabled and the declarations of the four scientists were conclusionary. The outcome, on appeal, of such a weak case is foreseeable.

There is a bit of a "house divided" component to the argument that WARF does not have corresponding patents outside the U.S. If people OUTSIDE of the U.S. are NOT impeded by patents, why has NO ONE been able to do the SCNT work falsely claimed by Hwang in 2005? Separately, ConsumerWatchdog and Loring are silent as to "why" the EPO (for example) has not granted the WARF application.

[UPDATE. As of 1pm (eastern) on July 21, californiastemcellreport has NOT posted the above-comment, AND does not show a link to this post. UPDATE. The comment was posted by 8pm.]


Of --two California organizations--, PubPat, which represents Consumer WatchDog (formerly FTCR), is located in New York (The Public Patent Foundation, Inc., 1375 Broadway, Suite 600, New York, New York 10018). In the re-examination actions before the USPTO, references relied upon by FTCR were found "not enabled" and the declarations of the four scientists were found to be "conclusionary." The arguments fashioned by PubPat were not relied upon by the USPTO. This is not a strong platform for a successful appeal. Of --slowing down stem-cell research--, Consumer Watchdog has repeatedly asserted that WARF's patents exist only in the U.S., but never explains why research outside of the U.S. [unhindered by the US patents] has not moved forward.


Post a Comment

<< Home