![\"khandelwal](\"http:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/khandelwal-lawsuit.jpg\")
<\/a>Abbott Laboratories\u2019 Indian subsidiary, successfully in-licensed a new combination anti-infective product, CEFI-XL™.\u00a0 It soon became the largest-selling anti-infective product in the Indian subcontinent.\u00a0 Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, however, the company soon faced competition from five<\/i> different generics makers, each of which launched a competing generic product.<\/p>\nThe licensor, however, had prudently obtained an Indian patent on the product.\u00a0 The licensor thus sued the generic makers for patent infringement in India, and won a preliminary injunction against infringement.<\/p>\n
The accused infringers in fact had a point: the U.S. Patent Office had rejected the application nine times<\/strong> over the course of nearly a decade.\u00a0 Thus, the judge hearing the case considered revoking the Indian patent.<\/p>\n Do you need your patent yesterday?\u00a0 Call us.\u00a0 Abbott Laboratories did, and here’s what happened: Abbott Laboratories\u2019 Indian subsidiary, successfully in-licensed a new combination anti-infective product, CEFI-XL™.\u00a0 It soon became the largest-selling anti-infective product in the Indian subcontinent.\u00a0 Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, however, the company soon faced …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":9,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-full-width.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-82","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","column","twocol"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82","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=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":856,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82\/revisions\/856"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/licensinglaw.net\/blog3\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a>The accused infringers, however, responded that the Indian patent should never have been granted in the first place.\u00a0 The infringers pointed out that the counterpart U.S. patent application had been rejected by the U.S. Patent Office \u2013 a gold standard in IP law.\u00a0 The infringers thus argued that IP India, an arguably less-experienced institution, had erred in granting the Indian patent.<\/p>\n<\/a>To address this threat, we were asked to assume responsibility for the U.S. patent application and see if we could obtain approval of the U.S. patent post-haste.\u00a0 We obtained Power of Attorney on July 10th<\/sup>.\u00a0 On July 24th<\/sup>, we attended a hearing with the Patent Examiner.\u00a0 On August 21st<\/sup>, the Patent Office issued a Notice of Allowance.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, in six weeks we ended years of unproductive prosecution, saving the Indian patent from this collateral threat.\u00a0 Further, having an issued patent (US07632520<\/a>) eliminated the expense of continued U.S. prosecution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"