Replies to post #193737 on Biotech Values

[north40000]

Your statement calling the Fed. Cir. "Professionally negligent" in failing to ask the Executive Branch to opine on the legislative history of the Hatch-Waxman "safe harbor" provision you refer to is both nonsensical and beyond the pale. Why did not DOJ do what you ask for on its own? Perhaps S.G. Itself was "professionally negligent" in not providing that history in the first place if that is what happened.

[zipjet]

>>(In the CAFC’s 2-1 ruling against MNTA in Jan 2012 on the preliminary injunction, the one judge siding with MNTA [who is now retired] said in his dissent essentially the same thing that the US SG is now saying in its amicus brief.)

To the extent that one of the judges made the same argument, the proposition was raised to the other judges. Not sure that the SG making the same points would have had a greater impact. That, in my experience, would turn on internal court politics which often has nothing to do with what we generally call politics.

Still the safe-harbor turned into a free license to use others patented property. Not a good policy IMO.