Tafas v. Dudas et al, No. 1:2007cv00846 - Document 50 (E.D. Va. 2007)
Court Description: ORDER in accordance w/Memo Opinion Deft Motion to Strike Exhibit E of the Memo in Support of Pltf Motion for Prelim Inj is denied. 33 Motion for Leave to File; 36 Motion for Leave to File; and 39 Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Briefs in Support of Pltf Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction are granted. Pltf Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted. Defts are preliminarily enjoined from implementing the Final Rules titled "Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Failings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistince Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications". Defts are prelimiarily enjoined from issuing new regulations restricting the number of continuing applications, the number of requests for continued examinaation and the number of claims that mey be filed w/the PTO. This Order shall expire upon the entryof a final judgment in this matter unless otherwise ordered by the Court.. Signed by Judge James C. Cacheris on 10/31/07. (jsol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tafas v. Dudas et al Doc. 50 Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 50 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. JON W. DUDAS, et al., Defendants. 1:07cv846 (JCC) CONSOLIDATED WITH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, et al. Plaintiffs v. JON W. DUDAS, et al., Defendants. 1:07cv1008 (JCC) O R D E R For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED: 1) Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibit E of the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED: 2) The Motions of American Intellectual Property Law Association, HEXAS, LLC, The Roskamp Institute, Tikvah Therapeutics, Inc., and Elan Pharmaceutical Corp. for Leave to Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ Document 50 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2 File Amici Curiae Briefs in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are GRANTED; 3)Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED; 4) Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from implementing the Final Rules titled “Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Failings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications,” 72 Fed. Reg. 46716, 46716-46843 (Aug. 21, 2007)(to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1); 5) Defendants are preliminary enjoined from issuing new regulations restricting the number of continuing applications, the number of requests for continued examination, and the number of claims that may be filed with the PTO; 6) This Order shall expire upon the entry of a final judgment in this matter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court; 7) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order and Memorandum Opinion to all Counsel of Record. October 31, 2007 Alexandria, Virginia /s/ James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
