{"id":403,"date":"2013-02-13T08:18:16","date_gmt":"2013-02-13T13:18:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/?page_id=403"},"modified":"2021-04-12T10:52:14","modified_gmt":"2021-04-12T14:52:14","slug":"fees","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/?page_id=403","title":{"rendered":"Fixed Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We charge fixed fees because our industry expertise enables us to predict costs reliably.\u00a0\u00a0 And while our fixed fees <a href=\"https:\/\/andybudd.com\/archives\/2009\/02\/why_i_cant_afford_cheap\">are not cheap<\/a>, they are far less expensive than cheaper alternatives.\u00a0 Here&#8217;s an example of why:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Antibiotic_combination-Zoomed.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-865 size-thumbnail\" src=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Antibiotic_combination-Zoomed-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Antibiotic_combination-Zoomed-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Antibiotic_combination-Zoomed-432x432.jpg 432w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Antibiotic_combination-Zoomed-268x268.jpg 268w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><\/a>Abbot Laboratories&#8217; Indian affiliate developed an antibiotic oral tablet combining cloxacillin and cefixime.\u00a0 The product was wildly successful, prompting them to pursue a U.S. patent on it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The application, however, encountered difficulty because this product combines two old antibiotics, and simply combining like components for their prior art use is <em>prima facie<\/em> obvious.\u00a0 Thus, perhaps not surprisingly, the U.S. Patent Office repeatedly rejected the application (<a title=\"PAIR record\" href=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/?page_id=751\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Serial No. 11\/013110<\/a>).\u00a0 Thus, after filing several RCEs and nine (9) Amendments, the applicant had not yet won a patent.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The applicant, however, became involved in infringement litigation (read this <a href=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/?page_id=82\">back-story here<\/a>) and thus needed allowance urgently.\u00a0 We were called in to help.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">We reviewed the file, identified the problem, and calculated a fixed fee to address it.\u00a0 While the fee quoted may have been a good bit higher than the client was used to paying, the client decided to give us a try.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Power_of_Attorney3-Zoomed.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-866 size-thumbnail\" title=\"Replacement Power of Attorney\" src=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Power_of_Attorney3-Zoomed-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Power_of_Attorney3-Zoomed-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Power_of_Attorney3-Zoomed-432x432.jpg 432w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/Power_of_Attorney3-Zoomed-268x268.jpg 268w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><\/a>Their decision paid off handsomely.\u00a0 We were named new attorneys on July 10th.\u00a0 We then met with the Examiner to explain how combining cloxacillin and cefixime is not obvious.\u00a0 The Examiner found our new approach convincing: on August 21st, The Patent Office issued a <em>Notice of Allowance<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Notice_of_Allowance.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright wp-image-415 size-thumbnail\" src=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Notice_of_Allowance-150x150.jpg\" alt=\"Notice_of_Allowance\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Notice_of_Allowance-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Notice_of_Allowance-432x432.jpg 432w, https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Notice_of_Allowance-268x268.jpg 268w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is why\u00a0our fixed fees are not cheap, but they are often the least expensive alternative.\u00a0 While our work may perhaps be more expensive than you are used to paying, it is less expensive than paying for years of ineffective work.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Would you like to give our fixed fees a try?\u00a0 If so, <a href=\"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/?page_id=22\">Contact Us<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We charge fixed fees because our industry expertise enables us to predict costs reliably.\u00a0\u00a0 And while our fixed fees are not cheap, they are far less expensive than cheaper alternatives.\u00a0 Here&#8217;s an example of why: Abbot Laboratories&#8217; Indian affiliate developed an antibiotic oral tablet combining cloxacillin and cefixime.\u00a0 The product &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":6,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-full-width.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-403","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","column","twocol"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=403"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":867,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/403\/revisions\/867"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}