Monthly Archives: November 2011

Supreme Court Asks Government To Weigh In On Saint-Gobain’s Cert. Request

Since I have done two, rather lengthy posts on the Fed. Cir. split decision in Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, 637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) , reh’g den. 647 F.3d 1373 (2011), it deserves … Continue reading

Posted in Doctrine of Equivalents | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Part II – Mayo’s Brief Goes Back to A (Non-Precedential) Past

In my last post on Mayo v. Prometheus, I noted that Mayo is cutting a trail of (legal) tears to ultimately rely on the reasoning underlying the “LabCorp dissent” (548 U.S. 132, 136). In this dissent from a dismissal of … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

EPO Ruling On Inventiveness Of Drug Polymorphs

Thank you to Dr. Stefan Danner, a German and European Patent Attorney at DHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Munich for letting us post the current issue of the biotech IP newsletter dealing with the recent EPO decision concerning the patentability of … Continue reading

Posted in EP and UK Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mayo’s Brief Goes Back To A (Non-Precedential) Future

You all may be suffering from Prometheus v. Mayo fatigue by now, but this remains the most important IP case before the Supreme Court, and may well alter the course of life sciences patenting for the foreseeable future. I know … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment