{"id":6353,"date":"2009-07-28T14:52:49","date_gmt":"2009-07-28T19:52:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=6353"},"modified":"2009-07-28T14:58:02","modified_gmt":"2009-07-28T19:58:02","slug":"parties-ask-for-stay-in-tafas-v-doll","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2009\/07\/parties-ask-for-stay-in-tafas-v-doll\/","title":{"rendered":"Parties Ask for Stay in Tafas v. Doll"},"content":{"rendered":"

The parties in the Tafas v. Doll<\/em> have\u00a0filed a \u201cJoint Consent Motion for a Stay of En Banc Proceedings.\u201d\u00a0 As patent practitioners are painfully aware,\u00a0Tafas<\/em> stemmed from the USPTO\u2019s August 21, 2007, new patent-prosecution rules and regulations. The \u201cnew regulations\u201d challenged were Rules 75, 78, 114, and 265. \u00a0Rule 75 established the number of claims that could be presented in an application without an accompanying examination support document.\u00a0 Rule 78 established the number of continuing applications that could be filed within a patent family.\u00a0 Rule 114 established the number of requests for continuations that could be filed within a patent family.\u00a0 Finally, Rule 265 set forth the requirements for an examination support document.<\/p>\n

Tafas, later joined by GlaxoSmithKline, challenged the validity of the new regulations, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginina granted summery judgment for\u00a0him (and GSK), enjoining the USPTO from implementing and enforcing the new regulations.\u00a0 Much to the dismay of most patent practitioners, on appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, that decision.\u00a0 The CAFC only agreed with the district court that Rule 78 was invalid and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of the remaining issues.\u00a0 Then, on July 6, 2009, the CAFC granted Taffas and GSK\u2019s petition for rehearing en banc.<\/p>\n

Well, all of the parties involved now want to wait and see what will happen since David Kappos has been nominated as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.\u00a0 If Kappos is confirmed after<\/span> his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow, July 29, 2009, then Kappos could moot the entire case by rescinding the rules at issue.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, last Friday, July 24, 2009, in their Joint Consent Motion for a Stay of En Banc Proceedings, all of the parties in the\u00a0case asked the court to stay all en banc proceedings, including briefing and oral arguments, until 60 days after Kappos’s confirmation.\u00a0 Hopefully, Kappos is confirmed; hopefully, he rescinds the new rules; and, hopefully, he does so quickly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The parties in the Tafas v. Doll have\u00a0filed a \u201cJoint Consent Motion for a Stay of En Banc Proceedings.\u201d\u00a0 As patent practitioners are painfully aware,\u00a0Tafas stemmed from the USPTO\u2019s August 21, 2007, new patent-prosecution rules and regulations. The \u201cnew regulations\u201d challenged were Rules 75, 78, 114, and 265. \u00a0Rule 75 established the number of claims […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":60,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/60"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}