Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 133

MOTION for Summary Judgment by SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC, Glaxo Group Limited. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reilly, Craig)

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 133 Att. 1

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 133-2

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ____________________________________ : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS,

1:07cv846 (JCC/TRJ)

CONSOLIDATED WITH ____________________________________ : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM : CORPORATION, : d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : 1:07cv1008 (JCC/TRJ) : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: ORDER GRANTING GLAXOSMITHKLINE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 133-2

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 2 of 3

Having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 of Plaintiffs SmithKline Beecham Corporation and Glaxo Group Limited d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, and SmithKline Beecham plc (collectively, "GSK") seeking entry of summary judgment that Defendant Jon W. Dudas, in his official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") (collectively, "Defendants") violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in enacting its "Changes To Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications" 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1) ("the Final Rules"), the memorandum in support thereof, the declaration and exhibits in support thereof, and all other submissions and arguments concerning the motion, and the entire record before this Court, and having determined that there is no genuine issue of material fact preventing judgment for GSK as a matter of law, IT IS on this __________ day of _______________, 2008, hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. 3. GSK'S motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; The Final Rules are declared invalid; The Final Rules are vacated as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or

otherwise not in accordance with law, contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations; and 4. Defendants are permanently enjoined from implementing the Final Rules titled

"Changes To Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 133-2

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 3 of 3

Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications," 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1).

_______________________________________ James C. Cacheris UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2