Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
FURTHER UPDATE ON PLAVIX® CASE
| April 21, 2010
As we reported in January, the defendant in Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex moved to stay the litigation pending completion of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265 for Sanofi’s anti-blood clot drug PLAVIX®. In March, the PTO issued a notice that it intends to issue a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of the claims.
Judge Sidney Stein has now denied Apotex’ motion to stay, finding that each of the traditional factors in considering such motions – simplification of issues, stage of the litigation, and prejudice to the patentee – weigh against a stay. Significantly, the CAFC has already affirmed a judgment that the ‘265 patent is valid and infringed by Apotex. The only issue remaining is the award of damages.
The last page of this story, however, may not have been written. On April 4, Apotex filed a second reexamination request based on U.S. Patent No. 4,529,596, “as well as other art and admissions.” And on April 16, Apotex filed a protest/petition, asserting that the examiner’s consideration of certain information submitted by Sanofi was ultra vires, i.e., that the information was not prior art or not otherwise suitable for consideration in a reexamination proceeding. Apotex’ petition is unusual because the reexamination is ex parte.
