OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

OBB RSS Feed

  •  

Disclaimer

  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. ("MHM") or its clients. No part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MHM or its clients. MHM represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MHM clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-2017

« Federal Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Plavix Case | Main | Apotex Sues FDA Over Decision on Generic Zofran, Challenging FDA's Interpretation of "Court Decision" Trigger Again »

November 09, 2006

Comments

Asok

How do you draft a process claim with a "commercial finality" element? (See last sentence of the decision before the Conclusion section). How do you make it sound like a claim limitation rather than a "whereby" clause?

Thalita

I have some doubts referring to this case. I can notice that the '176 patent is invalid by very clear reasons. However there is no mention regarding to the continuation patents of the same.
Considering that the original patent is clearly invalid how do the court used to interpret the validity of the subsequent patents (continuations)? Are they automatically invalid, too?

Regards

The comments to this entry are closed.