Monthly Archives: April 2009

IN SEARCH OF CHAKRABARTY, “NATURAL PHENOMENA” AND WHERE BILSKI WENT BAD, WITH A GLANCE BACK AT ARIAD.

I was finishing up my recent comment on the reexamination proceedings involving the Baltimore et al. patent, when a fragment of one of the Office Actions caught my eye and stuck in my mind. The Examiner is trying to explain … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Office Bats Down Ariad’s ‘Hail Mary Claims’ In Reexamination

In my earlier post on Ariad v Lilly, there is a detailed discussion of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision that invalidated all of the claims-in-suit for failure to meet the written description requirement. The Federal Circuit rejected Lilly’s attempts to … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In Search of University Patents

Technology Transfer Tactics, in conjunction with FreePatentsOnline, has created a site (link below) which they state can allow the visitor to view all of a given university’s patents by just clicking on the name of the institution. However, while this … Continue reading

Posted in Tech Transfer | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Throws a Wrench into “Mechanism of Action” Claims

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, appeal no. 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2009), involving Blatimore et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,410,516). … Continue reading

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment