March 2, 2010
Teva are opposing Wyeth’s Patent Application Number 151450, which is a divisional application of 120382 “Extended Release Formulation Of Venlafaxine Hydrochloride”.
When Teva submitted 60 odd publications, Wyeth accused them of widening the basis of their opposition, claiming that the information should have been submitted in the Statement of Case. Additionally, they claim an interesting idea of Parent Application Estoppel, claiming that by not opposing the parent application, the opposer is estoppeled from opposing the divisional application, and requested the relevant clauses to be struck from the record.
Teva claim that the sixty publications submitted were indicative of the state of the art and were not substantive new grounds for opposition. Furthermore, Teva point out that Dexel have submitted these publications in parallel opposition proceedings. As to the Estoppel argument, Teva suggested that this should be discussed on its merits in the opposition proceedings.
Shoshani Caspi has refrained to comment on the issues raised and is allowing the new publications to be cited. She has, however, required Teva to state what each publication contributes to establishing the State of the Art.
I think Shoshani Caspi’s position is reasonable. I am, however, at a loss as to what Wyeth, represented by Richard Luthi, have to gain by having prior art excluded from an opposition proceedings on procedural grounds. If a patent were to issue due to prior art that negates novelty or inventive step not being considered on a technicality, presumably the patent would be unenforceable as it would not hold up in court.
Leave a Comment » | 
Intellectual Property, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Opinion, Teva, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | 
Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
March 2, 2010
A Mr Zion Dadon had the bright idea of threading rings with attached clothes pins (English – clothes pegs) onto clothes lines, thereby preventing the problem of the pegs falling to the ground.
Fascinatingly, back in 1994, Rafael, Israel’s leading armaments manufacturer, was contracted to manufacture these revolutionary clothes pins, and manufactured 433,255 from polypropylene. It appears that the choice of material was left to the manufacturers, with the contract specifying high quality material. Polyproplylene was not up to the job, and Dadon requested manufacturing from nylon instead.
On the basis of poor choice of material, Dadon sued Rafael for Breach of Contract. The case was thrown out in September 1996. Now, some 3 1/2 years later, the Supreme Court has refused to reopen the case, claiming that the District Court had weighed up the evidence and reached a reasonable decision. the appeal was dismissed and costs of NIS 2500 were awarded against the appelant.
I have decided to blog the case as it is rare that the Israel Supreme Court considers patent cases, and even rarer where such cases are not pharmaceutical related. That Rafael are making clothes pins is also quite interesting.
As a Materials Scientist, I also have an interest in the choice of materials for various applications. In trying to evaluate the reasonableness of manufacturing clothes pins from polypropylene, I note that US 4,876,771 to Itzhak Givati titled “Plastic clip particularly useful as a clothes pin” which was filed in 1988, suggests polypropylene as an appropriate plastic.
I am still not sure what Rafael’s interest in this is. I have not found any reference to clothes pins being used in weapon systems, although they apparently widely used as nipple clamps in BDSM applications.
Appeal 1668/07 Zion Dadon against Rafael Weapons Development LTD.
Leave a Comment » | Israel Court Ruling | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
March 2, 2010
Watson Laborarories Requests Declaratory Judgement that Teva’s Patent For Seasonique is Invalid Watson Laboratories Inc. has filed a declaratory judgment suit against Teva Women’s Health Inc., seeking a ruling that its bid to make a generic version of oral contraceptive Seasonique does not infringe a separate patent covering a lower dosage of the drug. Watson, the generics maker, filed its complaint Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, disputing the validity of a “nearly identical” patent assigned to the Teva unit. THE CASE: Watson Laboratories, Inc. vs Teva Women’s Health, Inc. 3:10-cv-00115; filed February 25, 2010 in the District Court of Nevada
Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Patents, Teva, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 23, 2010
Claiming Libel, Israel fashion company Versace 83 LTD. sued Maariv newspaper and a couple of journalists for relating, in a gossip column, to the celebrity singer Lior Narkis appearing in a Versace suit as wearing apparel with a fake logo instead of the real thing.
Since the Italian Fashion House Gianni Versace had obtained an injunction against Versace 83 LTD and have subsequently had their trademarks cancelled, we are not surprised that the Vice President of the Tel Aviv District Court, Judge Shoshana Almagor threw the case out, and awarded NIS 35000 (about US $10,000) to the defendants.
One has to admire the chutzpah of Versace 83 Ltd. and their lawyers, Yaakov and Chana Kalderon, and it is also worth noting that the case was filed before the marks were cancelled. Nevertheless, one is reminded of the Talmudic metaphor of ritual immersion whilst holding a dead rat…
T.A. 10887/07 Versace 83 LTD. vs. Maariv Information Publishers and Others
Leave a Comment » | Israel Court Ruling | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 23, 2010
The UEFA Cup is a sports competition whose organizers licence screening rights to various bodies. One of the licensees, Charlton LTD, sued Pizza Pazza (2000) LTD. and the proprietor thereof, for illicit screening of match games in 2008.
The defendants attempted to have the case dismissed, based on the fact that the plaintiff did not cite UEFA as a co-plaintiff and did not provide all the documentation to show that they had screening rights.
The judge, Ms Abigail Cohen, dismissed the request to dismiss the case, pointing out that this was an extreme measure. Instead, she gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to correct their statement of case, and announced that she would rule on costs at the end of the trial.
The decision seems to be a correct one. The decision is a significant one since 18 months ago, Judge Michal Agmon Gonen had requested government clarification when faced with a case concerning webcasting football matches, where she was unclear as to whether the 2007 Copyright Act changed the substantive Law from the Israel Supreme Court Decision in TeleEvent, see http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2008/07/17/moving-copyright-goalposts/
We are thus pleased that the judge in this case considers public screening of matches as copyright infringement and is not prepared to dismiss the case on a technicality.
We wonder however, why the defendants or the judge didn’t point out that IP Law is not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court???
T.A. 14692-09-09 Charlton LTD vs. Pizza Pazza (2000) LTD. and others
2 Comments | Copyright, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel Copyright, Israel Court Ruling, News, Opinion | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 18, 2010
Section 24a of the Israel Patent Law 1967 allows for filing a divisional application at any time up to a patent application issuing.
In the interests of clarifying the scope of protection, in Circular 81, the Commissioner of patents has ‘clarified the ambiguity of’ this Section of the Law by interpreting it to mean that divisional applications can only be filed prior to the parent application issuing.
Comment
With the proposed amendment allowing for 18 month publication, this measure is clearly required. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that this is interpretation of the law, but rather amendment thereof.
Arguably this measure requires a formal amendment to the Law by the Knesset and goes beyond the authority of the Commissioner. It should be included in the proposed amendment for 18 month publication (second reading) and it would be fun if someone challenges this Circular on procedural grounds.
1 Comment | IPO, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, Opinion, Patents, patent search, patentable subject matter | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 17, 2010
An appeals board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has partially rejected a patent on Pfizer Inc’s impotence drug Viagra because it works in a way similar to the Chinese herb Yin Yang Huo, otherwise known as Horny Goat Weed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimedium for details of this plant.
This February 12 decision upheld an earlier finding that an element of the Viagra patent did not represent a new invention.
Interestingly the claims were cancelled following the patentee, Pfizer, filing a patent infringement lawsuit against rival pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co, which makes the competing drug Cialis.
The board of patent appeals ruled that a chemical ingredient of Yin Yang Huo, which is used to treat impotence and sometimes sold as an alleged aphrodisiac, is similar to the enzyme inhibitor found in Viagra.
The Pfizer patent which is not due to expire until 2019, enables Pfizer to maintain a monopoly on sildenafil (Viagra) which is apparently used to treat erectile dysfunction. Last years sales of the drug in the US exceeded $2 billion.
There are apparently a lot of horny old goats out there…
Leave a Comment » | Patents, US Patent Office, USPTO, patentable subject matter, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 16, 2010
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has announced that its subsidiary, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., has signed an agreement with Novartis to settle patent litigation involving Teva’s U.S. generic version of Novartis’ Famvir(R) (famciclovir) 125 mg, 250 mg and 500 mg tablets including all claims for patent infringement and damages. Teva launched its generic famciclovir tablets in the U.S. in September 2007.
The present agreement releases Teva for all past and future activities in connection with the U.S. marketing and sale of Teva’s generic famciclovir tablets. Under the terms of the agreement, Teva will make a one-time payment to Novartis in addition to an ongoing royalty on U.S. sales of the generic product.
Leave a Comment » | Patents, Teva, US, drugs, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
February 15, 2010
Perrigo has obtained a valuable US Federal Court ruling that its generic version of Mucinex, a drug made by Reckitt Benckiser subsidiary Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, does not infringe on Adams’ patent.
The drug, a decongestant, is used to treat various respiratory conditions including asthma and bronchial infections.
Perrigo is now waiting for final U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug.
As the first company to successfully challenge the claim that patent term extension for Mucinex’s patent to 2020, Perrigo is entitiled to six months marketing exclusivity for generic version.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, News, Patents, US, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | Permalink
Posted by Michael Factor
