Glaxo files motion for preliminary injunction and TRO to stop new rules, hearing on October 26?

Posted At : October 17, 2007 8:55 AM | Posted By : Blog Staff
Related Categories: News,Legislation,USPTO

On Monday, Glaxo filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in its lawsuit seeking to prevent implementation of the new USPTO rules regarding claim and continuation limits. The court has set a hearing for October 26, which the USPTO has requested by extended to October 31 in order to give it the full 11 days it would otherwise get to file a brief in response.

The case is number 1:07-cv-01008-CMH-TRJ, and is assigned to Judge Claude M. Hilton, a Reagan appointee who has served in the Eastern District of Virginia since 1985, and took senior status beginning in 2006.

Relevant links:

Send |

Digg It! |

Linking Blogs | 1677 Views

Related Blog Entries

Claim and continuation rules dead: thousands of practitioners breathe easier (October 14, 2009)
Federal Circuit to hear claim and continuation rule case en banc (July 6, 2009)
Continuation rules appeal decided; continuation limit invalid; RCE limit and ESD requirements valid (March 20, 2009)
Federal Circuit holds oral arguments in claim and continuation limit rules case (December 9, 2008)
USPTO files notice of appeal in claim and continuation rules case (May 7, 2008)
No April Fools joke: Continuation and claim limit rules held invalid; permanently enjoined (April 1, 2008)
Summary of today's summary judgment hearing in the claim and continuation rule cases (February 8, 2008)
Motions for summary judgment in claim and continuation rules case taken under advisement (February 8, 2008)
Hearing on summary judgment motions in claim and continuation rules case this morning (February 8, 2008)
Reply briefs filed in claim and continuation rules case; administration opposes patent reform (February 4, 2008)
Oppositions to motions for summary judgment filed in cases challenging claim and continuation rules (January 23, 2008)
Amici piling up in lawsuit challenging new claim and continuation rules (December 31, 2007)
Motions for summary judgment filed in lawsuit challenging claim and continuation rules (December 21, 2007)
Summary judgment deadline now December 27 in lawsuit challenging new rules; one more amicus joins in (December 19, 2007)
Summary judgment motions due December 20 in lawsuit challenging new claim and continuation rules (December 15, 2007)
Analysis of order enjoining claim and continuation limit rules: almost 100% in Glaxo's favor (November 1, 2007)
Opinion enjoining continuation and claim limit rules released (October 31, 2007)
Claim and continuation limit rules preliminarily enjoined (October 31, 2007)
The Witching Hour approaches: hearing on Glaxo's preliminary injunction motion today at 10 Eastern (October 31, 2007)
Glaxo files reply brief in support of preliminary injunction, more amici join the fray (October 30, 2007)
USPTO files opposition to Glaxo's motion for preliminary injunction against new rules (October 29, 2007)
AIPLA seeks leave to file amicus brief supporting Glaxo in its challenge to the new USPTO rules (October 25, 2007)
USPTO moves to strike former USPTO director's declaration supporting Glaxo's PI motion (October 22, 2007)
Proposed IDS rules challenged before Office of Management and Budget (October 18, 2007)
Glaxo's preliminary injunction motion to be heard October 31, consolidated with earlier challenge (October 18, 2007)
No more first office actions for applications with 25+ claims? (October 16, 2007)
Another lawsuit filed to stop implementation of new USPTO rules, this time by a heavy hitter (October 11, 2007)
Are the new continuation and claim limit rules the "cure all" for the USPTO? (October 8, 2007)

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

There are no comments for this entry.

[Add Comment]

Blog Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Search

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Calendar

Archives By Subject

Abandonment (patent) (1) [RSS]
Abandonment (trademark) (3) [RSS]
Abandonment, suppression, and concealment (1) [RSS]
Access (2) [RSS]
Analogous art (1) [RSS]
Anticipation (32) [RSS]
Antitrust (10) [RSS]
Arbitrary/fanciful marks (2) [RSS]
Assignments (4) [RSS]
Attorney fees/exceptional cases (27) [RSS]
Attorney-client privilege (3) [RSS]
Best mode (2) [RSS]
Certificate of correction (1) [RSS]
Civil procedure (34) [RSS]
Claim and issue preclusion (12) [RSS]
Claim construction (74) [RSS]
Claim differentiation (4) [RSS]
Claim vitiation (6) [RSS]
Collective works (3) [RSS]
Compilations (2) [RSS]
Conception (1) [RSS]
Copyrights (78) [RSS]
Damages (24) [RSS]
Derivation (0) [RSS]
Derivative works (4) [RSS]
Descriptive marks (6) [RSS]
Design patents (6) [RSS]
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (8) [RSS]
Dilution (4) [RSS]
Doctrine of equivalents (28) [RSS]
Double patenting (5) [RSS]
Duplication right (1) [RSS]
En banc (21) [RSS]
Enablement (10) [RSS]
Experimental use (2) [RSS]
Fair use (6) [RSS]
False advertising (6) [RSS]
Famous marks (4) [RSS]
Federal Circuit cases (313) [RSS]
First sale doctrine (15) [RSS]
Generic marks (8) [RSS]
Geographically descriptive marks (1) [RSS]
Immunity (7) [RSS]
Indefiniteness (10) [RSS]
Inducing and contributory infringement (11) [RSS]
Inequitable conduct (27) [RSS]
Inherency (2) [RSS]
Injunctions (37) [RSS]
Interference (1) [RSS]
International (32) [RSS]
Inventorship (4) [RSS]
ITC (8) [RSS]
Joint authorship (2) [RSS]
Joint infringement (3) [RSS]
Laches (2) [RSS]
Legislation (85) [RSS]
Licensing (42) [RSS]
Likelihood of confusion (25) [RSS]
Literal infringement (31) [RSS]
Marking (patent) (2) [RSS]
Means-plus-function (9) [RSS]
Merger doctrine (2) [RSS]
News (126) [RSS]
Notice of patent rights (3) [RSS]
Obviousness (68) [RSS]
On sale bar (6) [RSS]
Originality (2) [RSS]
Other (6) [RSS]
Parody (2) [RSS]
Patent misuse (2) [RSS]
Patent term (2) [RSS]
Patentable subject matter (14) [RSS]
Patents (143) [RSS]
Performance right (1) [RSS]
Personal jurisdiction (7) [RSS]
Preemption (3) [RSS]
Priority (10) [RSS]
Prosecution history estoppel (15) [RSS]
Public use (7) [RSS]
Publication (copyright) (1) [RSS]
Reduction to practice (5) [RSS]
Reexamination (7) [RSS]
Registration (7) [RSS]
Reissue (3) [RSS]
Reverse doctrine of equivalents (1) [RSS]
Right of privacy and publicity (2) [RSS]
Secondary meaning (3) [RSS]
Standards-setting organizations (1) [RSS]
Standing (17) [RSS]
Statute of limitations (4) [RSS]
Subject matter jurisdiction (39) [RSS]
Substantial similarity (3) [RSS]
Suggestive marks (1) [RSS]
Supreme Court (33) [RSS]
Surveys (1) [RSS]
Term (copyright) (1) [RSS]
Term (patent) (0) [RSS]
Trade dress (5) [RSS]
Trade secrets (4) [RSS]
Trademarks (80) [RSS]
TTAB (13) [RSS]
Unfair competition (4) [RSS]
Use in commerce (5) [RSS]
USPTO (120) [RSS]
Willful infringement (10) [RSS]
Work product doctrine (1) [RSS]
Works for hire (1) [RSS]
Written description (14) [RSS]

Tags

anticipation antitrust attorney fees/exceptional cases civil procedure claim and issue preclusion claim construction copyrights damages doctrine of equivalents en banc enablement federal circuit cases first sale doctrine indefiniteness inducing and contributory infringement inequitable conduct injunctions international legislation licensing likelihood of confusion literal infringement news obviousness patentable subject matter patents priority prosecution history estoppel standing subject matter jurisdiction supreme court trademarks ttab uspto willful infringement written description

Recent Entries

No recent entries.

Recent Comments

USPTO publishes interim guidance for assessing patentable subject matter post-Bilski
patent litigation said: I'm glad that the initial, apparently-burden-shifting version of the interim guidelines was replaced... [More]

USPTO proposes tiered system for patent application examination speed
Gena777 said: This is an indication that Director Kappos understands that different patent applications should be ... [More]

Leo Stoller v. Google: the final chapter?
Chili Palmer said: On February 11, 2010, the Illinois Appellate Court (First District) granted an order taking judicial... [More]

USPTO to allow accelerated examination for "green" applications without examination support document
Gena777 said: There's little question that "green" technology is increasingly critical to preservation o... [More]

Highlights from oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos
Gena777 said: Bilski has made such broad arguments that it's hard to take his claims seriously. Which makes me won... [More]

RSS

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.8.001.