By Andrew Williams — Last year, the Federal Circuit decided the Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal case en banc in what could be considered the epitome of a fractured decision. After 148 pages and five separate opinions, the only agreed-to result could be summed up in two conclusions: (1) that the PTO had not adopted a rule regarding the burden of persuasion, and that (2) because there was nothing that was entitled to deference, "the PTO may not place that burden on the patentee." Nevertheless, Judge Rayne's concurrence-in-part, at Part III, articulated a rule regarding the burden of production, even…Original Article
You may also like
Pharmaceutical Sales Customer Engagement –...
AstraZeneca’s Polyneuropathy Treatment Recommended...
Designing a Strategic Roadmap for Seamless Product...
AAPS PharmSci 360: LBFs and Tackling Oral Biologic...
CHMP Gives Positive Opinion to Novo Nordisk Hemophilia...
GSK, Cambridge to Partner on R&D for Kidney and...
About the author
David Miller
a pharmacist, a tech enthusiastic, who explored the Internet to gather all latest information pharma, biotech, healthcare and other related industries.