tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post9059673926394169058..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Rocket in the Patents Court: Napp Pharmaceutical v Dr Reddy's and SandozVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79712328103146865592016-11-26T22:19:49.103+00:002016-11-26T22:19:49.103+00:00Jeez, what a dog of a patent, dog of a case. These...Jeez, what a dog of a patent, dog of a case. These drug companies certainly take the biscuit for stringing along the judges more and more. Seriously, how can counsel file a claim with such an embarrassing patent!!! I don't know what the other anonymous commentators are on to miss the elephants in the room in this trial, but it sure ain't tylenol. The minnow must have been feeding everyone some of those happy patches. But hell, whatever they are fed sure ain't what they become, not if those arguments merited anything other than a swift kick out of the courthouse. Percentages amount to what goes in? Product claim? Client should have told counsel to take those suggestions and stick them wherever Hilary Clinton's e-mails have taken their vacation.<br /><br />Only in Britain! I'm sticking with Alice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67129356799966903632016-11-24T08:34:37.249+00:002016-11-24T08:34:37.249+00:00I think we know a bit about the generic products i...I think we know a bit about the generic products i.e. (a) the broader ranges that they would have fallen within; and (b) the narrower ranges which fell outside. Eibhlin Vardyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215218962289688854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42030935579891762102016-11-22T18:57:25.024+00:002016-11-22T18:57:25.024+00:00Eibhlin, Thank You. A rapid decision no doubt for ...Eibhlin, Thank You. A rapid decision no doubt for readily-determined outcome? Odd I think we know the make-up of the napp product and not Reddys?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19858619083787137782016-11-22T13:12:43.307+00:002016-11-22T13:12:43.307+00:00Thank you for these comments. There was no challen...Thank you for these comments. There was no challenge to the validity of the Patent in these proceedings, save for an allegation of insufficiency advanced by Dr Reddy's by way of a squeeze on construction. On appeal, Dr Reddy's contended in its respondent's notice that if the patent was construed in the manner contended for by Napp then claim 1 would be insufficient because it does not enable the reader to determine where the boundaries of the claim lie. The Court did not consider this respondent's notice because of the Court's findings on infringement. Eibhlin Vardyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215218962289688854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12277334548417770792016-11-21T21:34:05.250+00:002016-11-21T21:34:05.250+00:00Nappamatics.
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 5
3 + 3 = about 10...Nappamatics.<br /><br />1 + 1 = 2<br />2 + 2 = 5<br />3 + 3 = about 10<br />4 + 4 = the number napp are thinking of minus the number they first thought of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87864310810742686532016-11-21T17:51:45.091+00:002016-11-21T17:51:45.091+00:00Certainty that high-relevant art cited during exam...Certainty that high-relevant art cited during examination to produce over-narrow claims so? Reddy and Sandoz legal team asleep to opportunity for squeeze argument and risk taken not challenging validity, so lucky Judge decided in their favor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66090270474277449882016-11-21T10:25:21.088+00:002016-11-21T10:25:21.088+00:00" If the patentee had wished to claim, for ex..." If the patentee had wished to claim, for example, 7.5-12.5%-wt buprenorphine he could have done so by making express provision in the claim."<br /><br />Prior art?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com