Monthly Archives: November 2009

POST FROM AUSTRALIA – NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS MAY NOT BE CITABLE ART.

Posted on November 18, 2009 by Warren Woessner

By Bill Bennett, Pizzeys, Canberra, AU A unique aspect of Australian Patent Law is the requirement that a reference must be “reasonably ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant” by the hypothetical skilled person before it can be applied in an … Continue reading →

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

"LOOKS BAD FOR BUSINESS METHODS" — A note by Erwin J. Basinski

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Warren Woessner

The Bilski case before the US Supreme Court came up for oral argument on November 9. After a couple of reads, My initial impressions are: 1. Most of the questions from the Justices (primarily Scalia, Breyer, Roberts, Sotomeyor, Stevens, Kennedy, … Continue reading →

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION IN EUROPE – PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER?

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Warren Woessner

By Paul Cole, Lucas & Co., UK The UK counterpart of In re Ngai is Bayer’s (Meyer’s) Application [1984] R.P.C. 11. In that case a claim to a package containing a known drug together with instructions for a new use … Continue reading →

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

"INFORMATION PLEASE!" – BILSKI TAKES IT TO THE SUPREMES

Posted on November 11, 2009 by Warren Woessner

Reading the transcript of the oral arguments presented yesterday (a copy is attached at the end of this posting) as Bilski was presented to the Supreme Court, I was struck by how quickly certain Justices homed in on one of … Continue reading →

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments