USPTO files opposition to Glaxo’s motion for preliminary injunction against new rulesOctober 29, 2007 Apparently the government's lawyers had a long weekend, because on Sunday, the USPTO filed its opposition to Glaxo's motion for preliminary injunction against the new claim and continuation limit rules. Included with the opposition were a whopping 34 attachments making up 7 exhibits. The USPTO makes the expected arguments. First, it argues that it is entitled to Chevron deference in its interpretation of the patent statutes. Then, it argues that the statutory provisions relating to continuing applications, claims, and requests for continuing examination are not mandatory, and that it has not absolutely limited the number of such filings. The brief also attacks the argument that the new rules aren't really going to help the USPTO's backlog. In addition, it asserts that Glaxo will not suffer irreparable harm if the rules are enjoined, but that the USPTO (somehow) will be irreparably harmed if the rules are enjoined. All in all, the response basically follows the USPTO management's company line. The good news is that Glaxo should have sufficient time to file a reply before the hearing on October 31. Relevant links: Opposition to motion for preliminary injunction Exhibit 1 (Administrative record excerpts): Part 1, 2, 3 Exhibit 2 (final rules) Exhibit 3 (proposed rules) Exhibit 4 (declaration of Andrew Faile, group director in Technology Center 2600), Exhibit A, B (part 1, 2), C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M Exhibit 5 (declaration of John LeGuyader, group director in Technology Center 1600) Exhibit 6 (declaration of Karen Young, group director in Technology Center 3700), Exhibit A (part 1, 2), B (part 1, 2), C, D (part 1, 2), E, F Exhibit 7 (declaration of Robert Breneman, PALM EXPO program manager), Exhibit A (part 1, 2) Go to this post for the motion for preliminary injunction and other court documents in the case. ← Return to Filewrapper