Given that the IP community at large has several witty commentators and decision makers in its midst, we decided to initiate a new series called "Quip of the Week" (Quip also happens to contain "IP", reason enough to pick this term).
So what do we have for this week? A rather provocative statement from the Hon'ble Mr Justice Floyd of the UK Patents Court (Chancery Division), who, obviously aghast at the sheer obviousness of a patent, remarks at the end of his opinion in Cephalon vs Orchid:
"The Cephalon patents are all invalid for obviousness...... Had they been valid, they would not have been infringed."
For those interested in a review of this decision and its implications for India, see Rajiv's thoughtful analysis here.
And if any of you come across quips that you'd like us to share through the blog, please feel free to email us.
So what do we have for this week? A rather provocative statement from the Hon'ble Mr Justice Floyd of the UK Patents Court (Chancery Division), who, obviously aghast at the sheer obviousness of a patent, remarks at the end of his opinion in Cephalon vs Orchid:
"The Cephalon patents are all invalid for obviousness...... Had they been valid, they would not have been infringed."
For those interested in a review of this decision and its implications for India, see Rajiv's thoughtful analysis here.
And if any of you come across quips that you'd like us to share through the blog, please feel free to email us.
Posts
4 comments:
Once the patent issued, the gun was loaded; when the targets were acquired, it was cocked; all that was left was to pull the trigger by filing a complaint.
Judge Linn, Micron v Rambus (CAFC 2009-1263)
"The claim in this case is that a few of Kimberly-Clark’s brands of toilet paper are infringing on Georgia-Pacific’s trademark design. But again, this case is about toilet paper, and who really pays attention to the design on a roll of toilet paper? "....
Judge Evans in Georgia-Pacific Vs Kimberley-Clark (10-3519)
well, cannot call it as a quip per se, but it indeed makes the start of the judgement in a hilarious manner and makes it interesting through out..
"Clear and Present Danger" A term used by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr Schenck v United States 249 U.S 47 (1919)
An exception to freedom of speech. Not a quip per se I agree but it has an indirect\direct effect on comparative advertisement and freedom of speech.
wonderful suggestions. thanks to all of you.
Post a Comment