Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner Pages
Archives
Monthly Archives: June 2016
Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc. – How to Flunk s. 101
On June 22d, the Fed. Cir. issued a summarily affirmed the district courts Order that the method claims in suit did not pass the Alice/Mayo test for patentable subject matter. Claim 51 of U.S. patent no. 7787938 is representative: “A … Continue reading
Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Tagged Alice, exergen, Federal Circuit, Mayo, Patent Law, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Same-Day Continuing Applications are Co-pending under s. 120
The outcome of this question of statutory construction was not really in doubt, given the fact that an adverse holding could invalidate thousands of patents which needed same-day copendency to avoid intervening prior art. Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., Appeal no. … Continue reading
“Unclean Hands” Doctrine Erases Merck’s Damage Award
In my last post on the district court’s ruling in Gilead v. Merck, I implied that Gilead had convinced the Judge that Merck had employed inequitable conduct (“IC”) in conducting its negotiations with Pharmasset, the company Gilead later purchased to … Continue reading
Supreme Court Rewrites the Law of Enhanced Damages
This is a guest post by Janice M. Mueller of Chisum Patent Academy. Today the Supreme Court rewrote the law of enhanced damages for willful patent infringement by issuing a unanimous decision in No. 14-1513, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse … Continue reading