Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cadence Pharmaceuticals, AŞ Message Board

  • valuklick valuklick Aug 15, 2013 5:35 PM Flag

    news on cadence

    so there is news with regards to the patents...anyone want to clarify.
    "Comments on USPTO's Non-Final, Initial Office Action on Reexamination of Patent"

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • dpca10@gmail.com dpca10 Aug 15, 2013 6:49 PM Flag

      Man can't these guys catch a break? What exactly does this mean?

      "This initial office action by the USPTO is not a final decision, rather, it's just one step in the reexamination process, which can take many years to complete. It's very common for the USPTO to reject some or all of the claims of a patent in an initial office action, however, claims that are initially rejected may be subsequently allowed. Importantly, we don't expect this action to have an adverse impact on the pending litigation against Exela," said Ted Schroeder, President and CEO of Cadence. "We strongly believe that the scope and validity of the patent claims in the '222 patent are appropriate and that the USPTO's prior issuance of the patent was correct."
      The '222 patent covers the formulation of OFIRMEV, and expires in August 2017, and US Patent No. 6,992,218, covers the process used to manufacture OFIRMEV, and expires in June 2021. Upon completion of the company's ongoing pediatric clinical trial of OFIRMEV, both patents will be eligible for an additional six months of marketing exclusivity. In September 2012, a third party filed with the USPTO a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the '222 patent, and in December 2012, Cadence received notice that the USPTO had granted the Request for Reexamination. The reexamination process requires the USPTO to consider the scope and validity of the patent based on substantial new questions of patentability raised by a third party or the USPTO.

      • 1 Reply to dpca10
      • We might need a litigation lawyer to help us out here, but since the case is based on patent infringement, if the decision today states that, "We strongly believe that the scope and validity of the patent claims in the '222 patent are appropriate and that the USPTO's prior issuance of the patent was correct." doesn't that mean that the patents in question owned by CADX are protected and therefore should be the victor in the lawsuit?
        Fingers crossed

        Sentiment: Hold