Showing posts with label Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs). Show all posts

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Allergan is dealt another setback as patent board shoots down Mohawk patent deal; STAT, February 23, 2018

Ed Silverman, STAT; Allergan is dealt another setback as patent board shoots down Mohawk patent deal

"In a closely watched case, a U.S. patent appeals board ruled that a Native American tribe cannot claim sovereign immunity in order to avoid a certain type of patent challenge. The decision is a blow to Allergan (AGN), which last fall transferred patent rights to one of its biggest-selling medicines to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in hopes of thwarting generic competition.

Procedurally, Allergan sought to avoid inter partes reviews, a type of patent challenge that has vexed drug makers since going into effect six years ago, because these are easier and faster to file than patent lawsuits. At the time it transferred patent rights to its Restasis eye treatment, which last year generated more than $1.4 billion in sales, Allergan was facing a conventional patent challenge in a federal court."

Saturday, May 14, 2016

A World Without Patents; Forbes, 5/12/16

David Pridham, Forbes; A World Without Patents:
"On the surface, Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee is about whether the Patent Office (PTO) can use a different standard in hearing challenges to a patent’s validity after it’s been granted than the standard used by the federal courts. It’s also about whether the taking of a legal property right (a patent) ought to happen via an administrative hearing, without judicial review.
During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed shocked by the PTO’s system for challenging patents, known as Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), calling it a “bizarre way … to decide a legal question” and a “very extraordinary animal in legal culture to have two different proceedings addressing the same question that lead to different results.” He was referring to the fact that a patent upheld as valid and infringed by the federal courts can then be taken by the infringing defendant to the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and declared invalid!...
Even if you stipulate that there are bad patents that shouldn’t have been issued, is it really believable that 90% of all patents granted are invalid — despite being issued only after careful review by PTO examiners in a process that takes over two years and results in the rejection of half of all patent applications?
If we really believe that 90% of Patent Office output is garbage, then we should just shut the agency down and save everyone all the trouble.
There would be consequences, of course. Without patents and the competitive protections they afford, individuals and companies will not invest the money it takes to develop new cures for disease or create new technological wonders. That’s because they know others will simply copy their inventions with impunity and then sell them at a much lower cost, since it didn’t cost them a dime to develop these in the first place. This is a terrific way to drive the innovators out of any industry."