Biotech Values

[zipjet]

Thanks North for the case. It is a fine read and instructive. The lessons certainly have application to the mL case.

I read both the Court's decision and the dissent.

The Court's decision rests on being a court of error and reviewing the District Court decision accordingly. And they found no error.

:^)

In contrast the dissent, reviewed more like a court of justice, taking considerable offense at the fact that Dr. Goldfarb stole the property of Gore and with the assistance of perjured statements beat them to the patent. Oddly those "facts" are confirmed by Goldfarb's own testimony.

This is one of the most troubling legal propositions by the District Court and affirmed by the CoA:

The District Court denied Baird's request for a permanent injunction finding that it was in the public interest to allow competition in the medical device arena, but in lieu thereof granted bargained an ongoing royalty to compensate for Gores future infringement.

Thus, the trial court refused injunctive relief in order to promote competition with a patent holder that is practicing the patent. What happened to a patent holder having the right to exclusively practice? How can an infringer competing (implicitly degrading the pricing of the product) with the practicing patent holder ever pay a royalty that will be sufficient to remedy the damage suffered?

IF promoting competition is a sufficient basis for denying injunctive relief against a practicing patent holder, then why would any patent justify an injunction issuing? Every infringer will promote competition, benefiting the public.

I have seen CoA's far to often take the stance they are courts of error and not courts of justice, while they affirm the stupidity of a trial court. This looks like another one to me.

I suppose it is not good to watch sausage being made or read cases like this.



ij