E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« An Analysis of the New Rules: 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(d)(1) and 1.114: Streamlined Examination | Main | An Analysis of the New Rules: Revisions to First Action and Second Action Final Practice »

September 11, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e200e5503da9138833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rules Challenger Amends Complaint and Withdraws PI Motion:

Comments

Tafas' amended complaint is almost as bad a botch job as the original.

They got the address for service wrong.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act only applies to rules when "required by [5 U.S.C. § 553] or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking." Voluntary notice and comment has apparently never been adjudicated, but probably does not suffice. Tafas' amended complaint fails to even plead this element of the RegFlex claim.

In some jurisdictions, mere certification that a rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is sufficient to comply with RegFlex. The PTO did that.

If this is the best lawyering that can be brought to bear, we all better get used to these rules.

Hey leave the good doctor and his attorneys alone. I don't see any of the big biotechs (with all their $$) taking any legal action. Someone had to do something.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30