Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. v Lipocine, Inc

Clarus Therapeutics, Inc. sought an extension of time to file evidence in support of its opposition to Lipocine, Inc.'s patent application. The matter was heard before the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, who had to decide whether the failure to file evidence within the statutory period was due to prompt and diligent action by Clarus and whether exceptional circumstances warranted an extension. The court considered the evidence provided by Clarus and the objections raised by Lipocine.

The key legal issues were whether Clarus had acted promptly and diligently in obtaining evidence from experts and whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension. The court found that while Clarus had provided some information about its actions, it lacked details about the evidence to be obtained and the reasons for any delays. The court also noted that Clarus had not explained why it took over a month to contact the European expert after discussing the matter with the US expert. The court concluded that Clarus had not satisfied the Commissioner that it had acted promptly and diligently in all respects and that the failure to file evidence was not due to exceptional circumstances.

The Deputy Commissioner allowed Clarus seven days to provide further evidence addressing the deficiencies in its previous submissions and any supporting arguments. If Clarus failed to do so, the request for an extension would be refused. Lipocine was also given seven days to respond to the additional material. The court awarded costs to Lipocine, as it had successfully objected to the extension.

In summary, the court was not satisfied with the information provided by Clarus regarding its efforts to obtain evidence and why it had failed to file it within the statutory period. While the court was prepared to give Clarus an opportunity to address these deficiencies, it found that the extension was not justified on the information previously provided. The court also noted that Lipocine's objection to the extension was successful, and costs were awarded accordingly.