Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 208

Memorandum in Support re 207 MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae filed by Intel Corporation. (Mullins, Maurice)

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 208

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS, Plaintiff, v. JON W. DUDAS, et al., Defendants. CONSOLIDATED WITH SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JON W. DUDAS, et al., Defendants. INTEL CORPORATION'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Intel Corporation ("Intel"), by counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7(F) states as follows as its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae in Connection with the Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment: Intel has reviewed the summary judgment briefs filed by the parties on December 20, 2007, and found that they adequately address most of the pertinent issues. As to one issue, however, Intel believes that an additional amicus brief would assist the Court. Civil Action No. 1:07cv1008 (JCC) Civil Action No. 1:07cv846 (JCC)

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 2 of 7

In particular, Intel submits that the plaintiffs' challenge to the PTO's "2+1 Rules" regarding continued examination filings is premature. As explained in the accompanying brief, the 2+1 Rules are plainly valid on their face because they merely require applicants to provide information confirming that they have not unduly delayed in prosecuting their claims. Plaintiffs fear that the regulations will be applied unduly harshly and in practice will be tantamount to strict limits on the number of continuing applications. That is conjecture, however. Rather than speculate, Intel urges the Court to exercise restraint: to wait to see how the rules are actually applied before determining whether to strike them down or order the PTO to make an exception in a particular case. Because this point has been lost in the parties' briefing, Intel urges the Court to grant this motion and accept Intel's short (under 10-page) amicus brief. WHEREFORE, Intel respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion and allow the filing of its Amicus Curiae Brief and for such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, INTEL CORPORATION Dated: December 28, 2007 _________/s/______________________ M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr. (VSB #47213) Email: [e-mail] Hugh M. Fain, III (VSB No. 26494) Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Intel Corporation SPOTTS FAIN PC 411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600 P.O. Box 1555 Richmond, Virginia 23218-1555 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

2

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 3 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 28, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: Joseph D. Wilson, III Joanna Baden-Mayer Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Washington Harbour 3050 K Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 [e-mail] [e-mail] Counsel for Plaintiff Triantafyllos Tafas Craig C. Reilly Richards McGettigan Reilly & West, P.C. 1725 Duke Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [e-mail] D. Sean Trainor Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20005 [e-mail] Elizabeth M. Locke Kirkland & Ellis LLP 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 [e-mail] Counsel for Consolidated Plaintiffs GlaxoSmithKline et al. Lauren A. Wetzler United States Attorney's Office 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [e-mail] Counsel for Defendants Jon W. Dudas et al.

3

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 4 of 7

Randall K. Miller Arnold & Porter LLP 1600 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 900 McLean, Virginia 22102 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici Biotechnology Industry Organization and Monsanto Company Scott J. Pivnick Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1400 McLean, Virginia 22102 [e-mail] Rebecca M. Carr Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Thomas J. O'Brien Morgan Lewis & Bockius 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 to'[e-mail] Counsel for Amicus American Intellectual Property Law Association Dawn-Marie Bey King & Spalding LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici Hexas, LLC, The Roskamp Institute and Tikvah Therapeutics, Inc. Robert E. Scully, Jr. Stites & Harbison, PLLC 1199 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 900 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Human Genome Sciences, Inc.

4

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 5 of 7

Craig J. Franco Odin Feldman & Pittleman P.C. 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 1100 Fairfax, Virginia 22031 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici Polestar Capital Associates, LLC and Norseman Group, LLC Jonathan D. Link McGuireWoods LLP 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1800 McLean, Virginia 22102 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus CFPH, LLC Robert C. Gill Saul Ewing LLP 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20037 Counsel for Amici PA Bioadvance, Life Sciences Greenhouse of Central Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse Charles Gorenstein Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Falls Church, Virginia 22040 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Intellectual Property Institute of William Mitchell College of Law Mathew Christian Schruers Computer & Communications Industry Association 900 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici Public Patent Foundation, Computer and Communications Industry Association, AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Essential Action, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge, Knowledge Ecology International, Prescription Access Litigation, Public Knowledge, Research on Innovation, and Software Freedom Law Center

5

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 6 of 7

John C. Maginnis, III 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 301 Washington, D.C. 20036 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus CropLife America M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr. Spotts Fain P.C. 411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600 Richmond, Virginia 23218 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Micron Technology, Inc. Jackson D. Toof Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Valspar Corporation Kenneth C. Bass, III Sterne Kessler, Goldstein & Fox 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici AmberWave Systems Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies Inc., Interdigital Communications LLC, Nano-Terra Inc., and Tessera, Inc. Kevin Michael Henry Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Washington Legal Foundation ____________/s/_________________ M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr. (VSB #47213) Attorney for Intel Corporation Spotts Fain PC 411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600

6

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

Document 208

Filed 12/28/2007

Page 7 of 7

P.O. Box 1555 Richmond, Virginia 23218-1555 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

7