Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:49:21 PM
It is informative to see a quote from an apparently knowledgeable observer of the issues associated with this case in a recent (September 22, 2016) trade journal article: Something isn't right. uspto review of the so called "withheld info" resulted in another patent. Apparently, the uspto agrees with GS and doesn't believe: 1. the invention was reduced to practice in 2003. 2. that the withheld info was material. 3. that it was deceived. Conclusion: this judge either doesn't understand patent law and the right to testing, or he's on the payroll of the defendant's. Regardless, vindication on appeal looks very strong here.
To add further confusion, Judge Larry McKinney refused to allow evidence/testimony directly from the USPTO which would have refuted his entire legal and logical arguments that were the basis of his decision (October 2014). Then upon further adjudication (just released September 2016) the judge accuses C&C of "inequitable and deceitful conduct". I suspect that C&C went apoplectic -- APE XXXX -- over all of this.
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM