Patent Baristas

After the district court held that an earlier patent (Pat. No. 5,236,940) did not qualify as an enabling prior art reference and didn’t anticipate claims of U.S. Pat. No. 5,527,814, relating to the use of riluzole to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the district court correctly placed the burden of proving non-enablement on the patentee.  The patentee then met that burden with persuasive evidence that the ’940 patent does not enable the ’814 patent.  Impax Labs v. Aventis Pharma (07-1513)

Aventis Pharmaceuticals owns the ’814 patent and sells riluzole under the trade name RILUTEK.  After Impax Labs filed for an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to market generic riluzole tablets, Impax sued Aventis for a declaratory judgment that Impax did not infringe the ’814 patent.

The trial court examined the asserted prior art, the ’940 patent, for evidence that it enables the use of riluzole to treat ALS and thus qualifies as enabling prior art and determined that the ’940 patent does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to treat ALS with riluzole and therefore does not anticipate claims 1-5 of the ’814 patent.

In order to anticipate a claimed invention, a prior art reference must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation. The “undue experimentation” component of that equation examines (1) the quantity of experimentation; (2) the amount of direction or guidance present; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims.  In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

The district court found that:

1. formula I encompasses a particularly large number of compounds;
2. riluzole was not meaningfully discussed in the treatment of medical conditions associated with the effects of glutamate;
3. the language of the ’940 patent itself created “substantial uncertainty” regarding use of glutamate inhibiting compounds in the treatment of ALS; and
4. the language in the ’940 patent discussing conditions implicating glutamate is speculative, at best.  In other words, the district court found that the disclosure of the ’940 patent did not put one of ordinary skill in the possession of the invention.

The CAFC then remanded for a specific determination on whether the ’940 patent enables a person of ordinary skill in the art to treat ALS with riluzole without regard to the efficacy of such treatment.

The district court found that excessive experimentation would have been necessary to practice the invention and rejected the notion that “the mere mention of riluzole is sufficient to put one skilled in the art in the possession of the claimed invention.”

The CAFC agreed:

As shown by the trial court, the ‘940 patent’s dosage guidelines are broad and general without sufficient direction or guidance to prescribe a treatment regimen.  The alleged prior art also contains no working examples.  Finally, nothing in the ‘940 patent would have led one of skill in the art to identify riluzole as a treatment for ALS.  In sum, each component of the claimed invention—identifying riluzole as a treatment for ALS and devising dosage parameters—would require undue experimentation based on the teachings of the ‘940 patent.

As this court explained during the first appeal, when an accused infringer asserts that a prior art patent anticipates specific patent claims, the infringer enjoys a presumption that the anticipating disclosure also enables the claimed invention.   Impax Labs., 468 F.3d at 1382.  However, the patentee may overcome that presumption with persuasive evidence showing that the prior art patent does not enable the claimed invention.

Whether you are a company conducting diligence or a target being examined, you need to ensure the value of the IP with a thorough and effective IP due diligence review.

In this light, the American Conference Institute’s 6th National Conference on Pharma/Biotech IP Due Diligence will be held at the Marriott East Side, New York, NY, on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 to Thursday, January 29, 2009.

IP due diligence is now a central concern and struggle for companies in life science-related industries, due to the substantial growth of mergers and acquisitions, spin-outs, and divestitures, as well as the evolving role of licensing and collaborative arrangements. If the due diligence is not properly conducted, you run the risk of loss of reputation, loss of profits, or even ruin.

Furthermore, since the intellectual property at issue can make or break a deal, it is imperative that you are aware of all of the current changes to patent practices. Proposed legislation, recent case law and proposed USPTO Rules complicate the patent landscape even further.

This conference is billed as the ONLY proven event where an experienced faculty of leading IP practitioners and in-house patent and IP counsel will not only give you the most up-to-date information about a constantly evolving patent landscape, but will show you how to incorporate these changes into your diligence review to accurately analyze the value of the IP.

You will also learn best practices from representatives of leading companies who have “been there” and managed successful and cost-effective IP diligence review, including practical advice and the tools you need to develop flexible checklists, structure the review based on the type of deal, evaluate the patent portfolio, prepare for the review and much more.

There is also and add-on Master Class: Drafting a Comprehensive Due Diligence Report – One Size Does Not Fit All

More information and registration is at the ACI website.

Patent Baristas is a Media Partner for this event.

As we saw in the Wyeth v. Dudas case, the US District Court for the District of Columbia overturned the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154 (the statute that prescribes patent terms).

Section 154 grants extensions of patent terms for certain kinds of PTO delay.  However, Congress says you can’t double-dip, i.e., to the extent that periods of delay overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.

The DC Court disagreed with the USPTO “explanation” of the rules that applicant gets credit for “A delay” or for “B delay,” whichever is larger, but never A + B.

It seems that many patents that had been pending for more than three years before issuance should now be entitled to additional time under the PTA. But, Rule 1.705(d) limits the time an applicant may challenge the final USPTO-calculated PTA of a patent.

It would seem that the statute provides that an applicant must apply for reconsideration of the PTA no later than the payment of the issue fee, and may do so only once.

35 USC §154(b)(A):  the Director shall-

(i) make a determination of the period of any patent term adjustment under this subsection, and shall transmit a notice of that determination with the written notice of allowance of the application under section 151; and
(ii) provide the applicant one opportunity to request reconsideration of any patent term adjustment determination made by the Director.

For these patents, you should petition immediately to have the patent term adjustment re-calulated.

So, what does this mean for patents issued more than two months ago?

There would appear to be three different categories of issued patents in relation to patent term adjustments:

1.  Patents issued less than 2 months ago. 

The final PTA determination, which is printed on the face of the patent, must be challenged within two months of the issue date.

2.  Patents issued more than 2 months ago but less than 180 days ago.  

If an applicant wants to appeal a patent term adjustment determination, then under the stature:

(A) An applicant dissatisfied with a determination made by the Director under paragraph (3) shall have remedy by a civil action against the Director filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia within 180 days after the grant of the patent.

3.  Patents issued more than 180 days ago.   

The 180-day time period to bring the action under the statute is absolute and cannot be petitioned.  Therefore, applicants would appear to need to appeal to the DC District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act within 180 days of issuance in order to have previous determinations set aside.

Generally, the district court has no jurisdiction to take an appeal unless the applicant perfected its administrative remedies before the USPTO, i.e., the applicant must have unsuccessfully petitioned for PTA correction from the USPTO under Rule 1.705(b), (c), and/or (d), but these wouldn’t seem to apply in this case.

So, what do you think? It would seem for patents in the last category, it may be worth petitioning first on the grounds of USPTO error in its misapplication of the rules and, barring that, filing suit in the DC District Court.  If they won’t/can’t take up the matter due to the statute, then it would seem that only the legislature could intervene.  Will this require an act of Congress?

On September 30, 2008, the US District Court for the District of Columbia overturned the interpretation of 35 USC § 154 (the statute that prescribes patent terms) by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).  See Wyeth v. Dudas, No. 07-1492 (D.D.C. September 30, 2008).

Section 154(a)(2) establishes a term of 20 years from the day on which a successful patent application is first filed. Because the clock begins to run on this filing date, and not on the day the patent is actually granted, the statute grants extensions of patent terms for (a) certain specified kinds of PTO delay, and (b) whenever the patent prosecution takes more than three years — regardless of the reason.

However, Congress says you can’t double-dip: “To the extent that periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the issuance of the patent was delayed.”

In the present case, Wyeth complained that the PTO has miscounted and deprived them of a portion of the extended term.

Section 154(b) provides three guarantees of patent term:

1. The first is found in subsection (b)(1)(A), the “[g]uarantee of prompt Patent and Trademark Office response.” It provides a one- day extension of patent term for every day that issuance of a patent is delayed by a failure of the PTO to comply with various enumerated statutory deadlines: fourteen months for a first office action; four months to respond to a reply; four months to issue a patent after the fee is paid; and the like. Periods of delay that fit under this provision are called “A delays” or “A periods.”
2. The second provision is the “[g]uarantee of no more than 3-year application pendency.” Under this provision, a one-day term extension is granted for every day greater than three years after the filing date that it takes for the patent to issue, regardless of whether the delay is the fault of the PTO. The period that begins after the three-year window has closed is referred to as the “B delay” or the “B period”.
3. The third type of delay, “C delays,” are delays resulting from interferences, secrecy orders, and appeals.

Note that you don’t get an extension for your own delay!

In its own bizarre world, the PTO issued final rules and an “explanation” of the rules with its construction of the double-counting provision. Under 69 Fed. Reg. 34238, the PTO “explained” that:

the Office has consistently taken the position that if an application is entitled to an adjustment under the three-year pendency provision of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B), the entire period during which the application was pending before the Office (except for periods excluded under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B) (i)-(iii)), and not just the period beginning three years after the actual filing date of the application, is the relevant period under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B) in determining whether periods of delay “overlap” under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A).

In short, the PTO’s view is that any administrative delay under § 154(b)(1)(A) overlaps any 3-year maximum pendency delay under § 154(b)(1)(B).  Therefore, the applicant gets credit for “A delay” or for “B delay,” whichever is larger, but never A + B.

Wyeth argued that the “A period” and “B period” overlap only if they occur on the same calendar day or days:

A patent application is filed on 1/1/02. The patent issues on 1/1/08, six years later. In that six-year period are two “A periods,” each one year long: (1) the 14-month deadline for first office action is 3/1/03, but the first office action does not occur until 3/1/04, one year late; (2) the 4-month deadline for patent issuance after payment of the issuance fee is 1/1/07, but the patent does not issue until 1/1/08, another year of delay attributable to the PTO.

According to Wyeth, the “B period” begins running on 1/1/05, three years after the patent application was filed, and ends three years later, with the issuance of the patent on 1/1/08. In this example, then, the first “A period” does not overlap the “B period,” because it occurs in 2003-04, not in 2005-07. The second “A period,” which covers 365 of the same days covered by the “B period,” does overlap. Thus, this patent holder is entitled to four years of adjustment (one year of “A period” delay + three years of “B period” delay).

But in the PTO’s view, since “the entire period during which the application was pending before the office” is considered to be “B period” for purposes of identifying “overlap,” the patent holder gets only three years of adjustment.

Judge Robertson agreed with Wyeth:

The operative question is whether “periods of delay attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1) overlap.” The only way that periods of time can “overlap” is if they occur on the same day. If an “A delay” occurs on one calendar day and a “B delay” occurs on another, they do not overlap, and § 154(b)(2)(A) does not limit the extension to one day. Recognizing this, the PTO defends its interpretation as essentially running the “period of delay” under subsection (B) from the filing date of the patent application, such that a period of “B delay” always overlaps with any periods of “A delay” for the purposes of applying § 154(b)(2)(A).

The problem with the PTO’s construction is that it considers the application delayed under § 154(b)(1)(B) during the period before it has been delayed. That construction cannot be squared with the language of § 154(b)(1)(B), which applies “if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue a patent within 3 years.” (Emphasis added.) “B delay” begins when the PTO has failed to issue a patent within three years, not before.

What does this mean for you?

Many patents that had been pending for more than three years before issuance will now be entitled to additional time under the PTA. For some patents, the increase in extra days will be huge.  Check those terms and check them now!

But, like the latest Ronco offer, you must act now.  Rule 1.705(d) limits the time an applicant may challenge the final USPTO-calculated PTA of an issued patent to within two months of the issue date.  Thus, applicants still eligible to petition should immediately review the USPTO-calculated PTA under Wyeth.

Note, the initial PTA determination that is received with the notice of allowance must be challenged before issue fee payment.  The final PTA determination, which is printed on the face of the patent, must be challenged within two months of the issue date. The second petition, however, cannot raise issues that were raised, or could have been raised, in a first petition.

For one service that helps keep track of extensions, see Professor Kayton’s PatentTerm Online.

BNA, the leading provider of expert information and analysis, presents a one-day, information-packed conference entitled Pharmaceutical Patent Law: A Prescription for Success in Challenging Times.

The conference will be held at the Ritz-Carlton, Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA, on November 12, 2008.

BNA offers a prescription for success as legislative, judicial, administrative, and ‘marketplace’ developments continue to advance at breakneck speed. This conference will help you:

* Get maximum value from your patents.
* Learn winning litigation tactics from leading practitioners.
* Avoid antitrust consequences when settling cases.
* Look for trends– where does case law go from here?

Recent case law developments, the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, and even the 2007 FDA Amendments Act have changed the landscape for drug companies that defend or challenge patents. As brand-name companies strive to maximize the market exclusivity for their products, generic makers try to enter the market before patents expire.

This conference will address the possibility of using International Trade Commission procedures to protect drugs from inappropriate competition and strategies for generic companies to challenge patents. In past years, generic companies had been losing the battle to secure court jurisdiction through declaratory judgment actions. However, the Supreme Court decision in the MedImmune case and its recent progeny in the Federal Circuit may have changed the prospects of generic companies on standing issues– for good.

Professionals who work with both branded and generic companies will be eager to hear the FTC Commissioner discuss how to settle patent litigation while staying on the right side of the antitrust laws.

*Special Patent Baristas Discount

Since I will be on a panel discussion of Non-Patent Marketing Exclusivity — with Brian McCormick of Hogan & Hartson, Kurt Karst of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, and Shashank Upadhye of Apotex — BNA is offering Patent Baristas’ readers a 40% discount off of the registration and, if you sign up two people at the discounted rate, the the third person is free!

To register go to the BNA site and enter the code [CONF40NE].

Click here to view conference information.

Today the PTO published a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments on paperwork burdens associated with the Ex parte Appeal Rule (73 Fed. Reg. 32937-32977, June 10, 2008).  This Information Collection Request (ICR)  an application from an agency to OMB for OMB’s approval under Paperwork Reduction Act, giving the agency authority to collect information from the public. The Information Collection Rule requires that the USPTO to develop and disseminate “an objectively supported estimate of burden.”

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ two main responsibilities include: (1) the review of ex parte appeals from adverse decisions of examiners in those situations where a written appeal is taken by a dissatisfied patent applicant and (2) the review of interferences to “determine priority” (that is, decide who is the first inventor) whenever an applicant claims the same patentable invention which is already claimed by another applicant or patentee.  Each appeal and interference is heard by a merits panel of at least three members of the Board.

On September 26, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) submitted ICR 0651-0031 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.  OMB has extended its review of the ICR several times, but there is no public evidence that PTO has resolved these questions so that burden estimates can be finalized that adhere to both OMB’s Information Collection Rule and OMB’s Information Quality Guidelines.

The request for comment concerns new information collection requirements resulting from the promulgation of the proposed 5-25 Claim Rule, but it also refers to elements related to changes to information disclosure statements (IDSs) and the proposed Appeals and Markush Practice Rules.

The USPTO does not disclose any analysis of benefits, costs, or other effects in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The entire relevant text reads as follows (71 Fed. Reg. 38819):

This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Note that “not significant” is normally limited to regulatory actions that have minor consequences and elicit little or no controversy.  Dr. Richard B. Belzer estimates that the PTO’s recent and anticipated regulatory actions will result in between 45 million and 73 million new burden-hours.

Dr. Belzer estimates that the total cost to the U.S, economy, just from the additional paperwork burden, could range from $13 billion to $34 billion per year. For perspective, note that the total paperwork budget for the Department of Commerce – PTO’s parent – is $1.7 billion.

The estimates of paperwork burden provided by PTO in its Supporting Statement were, in almost every instance, unsupported by any publicly disclosed data, models, or any other factual basis, even though the Office claims to adhere to applicable information quality guidelines.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 5 C.F.R. Part 1320) is a very important but almost completely unknown law. It’s purpose is to protect the public from abusive governmental demands for information.  Unlike previous notice-and-comment periods, this time any comments go to the Office of Management and Budget, a neutral arbiter outside the PTO whose statutory responsibility is to ensure that federal agencies treat the public fairly.

Without OMB’s approval, the Patent Office has no legal authority to compel patent applicants to comply with the Ex Parte Appeal Rule. 

How can you respond?

The first thing to do is send an email request to the PTO asking for a copy of the relevant documents:

To:                       Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov
Subject Line:        0651–00xx Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) Actions copy request
Message Body:    Please send by reply email a copy of this ICR and the Supporting Statement.

Please include a bcc to Dr. Belzer (rbbelzer [at] post.harvard.edu) so that he can count how many requests are sent to the PTO as a result of this alert.

You should receive at least two documents (we are awaiting our copies).  The text of the ICR will contain summary information. By regulation, the Supporting Statement must include objectively supported estimates of burden, and these estimates must be transparent and easy for you to reproduce to see how they did it.

For reference, the definition of paperwork “burden” is an expansive one; see below.  Estimates based on the “professional judgment,” “belief,” or “opinion” of Patent Office personnel, or estimates with no disclosed basis, do not qualify as “objectively supported.”

For the next 30 days, OMB will be accepting public comment on the paperwork and recordkeeping burdens associated with the Appeal Rule. By law, OMB has 60 days to either approve or disapprove the ICR. That deadline will run out very close to December 10, 2008, effective date of the Appeal Rule.

For this reason, it is imperative that public comments be submitted as early as possible. Do not wait until Day 29 to decide to do this.

It is essential that OMB hear from you. The more thoughtful, reasoned, and documented public comments OMB receives, the better. Usually, OMB does not receive any public comments at all, and in these cases it is OMB is compelled by necessity to assume that what the agency provided is valid and reliable. Your comments can help ensure that OMB gets higher quality information.

Public comments on the ICR should be sent as soon as possible, and must be sent by November 7, 2008, via email to:

Nicholas A. Fraser
Desk Officer for USPTO
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov

Public comments to OMB should address the following issues:

1. Has the PTO provided an objectively-based estimate of the number of hours it will take to comply with the Appeal Rule? Historically, the Patent Office has severely underestimated the number of hours, and has failed to provide any analytical transparency into the sources or methods employed. Often, the PTO’s burden estimates consist of mere “judgment” or “belief.”
2. Has the PTO provided an objectively-based estimate of the opportunity cost of each of these hours? Historically, the Patent Office has significantly understated the hourly cost of attorney time, and assumed that tasks normally performed by attorneys can be performed by lower-cost paralegals and administrative staff instead.
3. Has the PTO provided an objectively-based estimate of the number of applications expected to be appealed?  There is considerable controversy about how many appeals should be expected. For purposes of public comment on this ICR, the Continuations Rule, currently enjoined by the District Court in Tafas v. Dudas but now under appeal, should be assumed to apply. Do not assume that Tafas will be upheld.  You are entitled to take the PTO at its word, that issues formerly resolved through continuations must now be resolved through appeal.
4. Did PTO contact you for assistance or information to help them estimate the burden associated with the Ex parte Appeal Rule? By law and regulation, the PTO is required to consult with those who would bear the burden of complying with information collection requirements. They do not have to consult with all of you, but they do have to consult with some of you. Statements from the organizations that logically should have been consulted (e.g., AIPLA, ABA-IP, IPO, NAPP) stating that they were not consulted would be especially helpful.
5. Which elements of the Ex Parte Appeal Rule require you to submit information that the PTO already has in its possession, albeit in another form? It is against the law for OMB to approve the collection of duplicative information. Thus, most contents of the appendix required by current and proposed 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(t) are simply illegal. Are there any other provisions that you believe are duplicative?

Definition of Burden under 5 C.F.R. 1320.3(b)(1):

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency, including:

(i) Reviewing instructions;
(ii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information;
(iii) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information;
(iv) Developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information;
(v) Adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(vi) Training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
(vii) Searching data sources;
(viii) Completing and reviewing the collection of information; and
(ix) Transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The PTO has not made its submission to OMB requesting clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the Appeal Rule easily available on its web site.   However, the PTO’s submission is available at the OMB web site.   The single most important document is here.

Further background is available here and here.  The materials on the Appeal Rule and the public comments are available here and here.

Information for today’s post comes from Dr. Richard B. Belzer, a Harvard-educated, former White House staff economist, who provided one of the affidavits in the Tafas v Dudas litigation explaining the PTO’s lack of compliance with basic rulemaking procedure and gave OMB an analysis of the Continuations, Claims and IDS rules. 

The Biotechnology Institute is now accepting applications for “BioNOW” (Biotechnology Network of Women,) a leadership training program for women biotechnology professionals. The Biotechnology Institute is partnering with biopharmaceutical company Nektar Therapeutics for the program.

BioNOW, which will be held December 4-5 at Nektar’s headquarters in San Carlos, CA, will allow participants to develop skills that can lead to executive level industry positions as research scientists, business managers, HR officials, and other types of senior management roles.

“As more women aspire to leadership roles in the biotechnology industry, we want to provide opportunities for women to network and meet other women who are already leaders, and to develop their own plans for career development,” says Paul A. Hanle, president of the Biotechnology Institute.

Participants will undergo facilitated training in the areas of case study management, managing up, and networking skills. Over the course of each training activity, participants will have an opportunity to practice career-building skills and learn more techniques on how to meet critical decision-makers and attract and retain career mentors.

The program is available to any woman who is currently employed in a biotechnology or biopharmaceutical company and is interested in professional development training to pursue career pathways to executive management.

The application deadline is October 31, 2008.  Selected applicants will receive up to $400 dollars in reimbursement for travel costs.  See here for more information and an application.

This summer I went on vacation for a few days to get away from the office, computers, and patent law.  Yet I couldn’t help but to bring a little work with me.  Only this time it wasn’t something I could bill a few hours for; it was the thriller Undue Diligence written by Paul Haughey, with Joe Nile as the patent attorney hero.

I must admit I would never have thought that a patent attorney, doing his job could be a hero.  At the time, the only other fictional character I knew who is a patent attorney is Calvin’s dad in the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes.  Now, there is a small but growing genre of IP-related fictional thrillers (see “A Patent Lie”).

The author, Paul Haughey is a patent attorney with Townsend and Townsend and Crew with experience as a managing partner and an electrical engineer (and apparently a proclivity for April Fools stunts but that’s not something we’d do around here).  Undue Diligence is Paul’s first novel.

As the story unfolds, Joe Nile’s client doesn’t pay his bill — which is more like a Stephen King novel — after losing a patent infringement trial just a few days before Joe’s partnership vote.  He gets reassigned to work for the client’s competitor although we have to wonder about any possible conflicts of interest.

The next few weeks are a roller coaster ride as Joe gets pulled one way then another all while trying to maintain his professional integrity and help his client survive the murky waters of patent infringement and bringing a product to market.  But something isn’t quite right, it seems like someone is pulling all the strings to bring his life and law firm crashing down.  Can Joe help is client to bring their product to market to stop a strange deadly virus that is rapidly spreading before it is too late?

The story starts slowly at first with no clear indication of who the main players are and how everything is connects.  As it progresses the pace picks up and we are in for a wild ride.  The author does a good job explaining the subtleties of law firm politics and how they influence the plot.  The only fault line in this story is that the patent law explanations can seem a little forced, almost as though they were put in after the fact.  Overall, it was a fun book to read with plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing how it turns out.

Undue Diligence is available through Amazon here.

Today’s post comes from Guest Barista Scott Conley, a registered patent agent in Frost Brown Todd’s Cincinnati office.