Medicines Co.  Side Show: Yesterday, the full en banc Federal Circuit held its oral hearing in Medicines Co. v. Hospira to consider one of the many inequitable fact patterns that arise in the wake of Metallizing Engineering, butonly if Metallizing Engineering remains good law under the Leahy Smith America Invents Act of 2011.

En Banc Side Show to Helsinn, the Main EventMedicines Co. is a sideshow to the main event, whether Metallizing Engineering remains good law, the point in dispute in Top Ten No.  10 Helsinn Healthcare  v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (considered in Top Ten Patent Cases at pp. 20-21 and the issue of Metallizing Engineering is dealt with in Appendix I,  Wegner, First to File Patent Drafting, § 1[a][7][C] Inventor’s Secret Commercialization as Personalized Prior Art [2016] (pp. 43-56).)

The Scholarship of Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt:  Even before the change in the law in 2011, the underlying Metallizing Engineering reasoning could be questioned. The weakness of Metallizing Engineering is a theme in the amicifilings in Helsinn in briefs from both the United States of America and The Naples Roundtable, Inc.  Each cites the scholarship of George Washington University Law School full time faculty member, its patent scholar, ProfessorDmitry Karshtedt, Did Learned Hand Get it Wrong? The Questionable Patent Forfeiture Rule of Metallizing Engineering, 57 Villanova L. Rev. 261 (2012).

TopTenCasesMay6

Regards,
Hal