Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Millennium Pharm. v. Sandoz, Inc. – Revenge of the Chemical Judges

In the 2003 panel decision in Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., the panel rejected “the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition [of the claim element not found] in the prior art.” The claims were directed to a bioactive metabolite … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics LLC – Time to Redefine “Inventive Concept”?

Ariosa was a decision that essentially held that the novel discovery of a naturally-occurring phenomenon could not per se meet the Mayo/Alice requirement for an inventive concept, even though it was of “groundbreaking importance” in advancing medicine. The claims appealed in … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court | Leave a comment

Just When You Thought Things Couldn’t Get Worse Via The Application Of 101

On Friday, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, Appeal no. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2017), a Fed. Cir. panels of Judges Lourie, Reyna and Wallach (Reyna writing) held that claims to a method of assessing a test … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court, Section 101 | 2 Comments

Exhausted by Exhaustion: Impression Products v. Lexmark

Please revisit Don Chisum’s and Janice Mueller’s comments on Impression Products v. Lexmark, No. 151189 (S. Ct. May 30, 2017), in which the Court held that a seller of a patented printer cartridge had exhausted its patent rights, so that … Continue reading

Posted in Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Litigation Issues | Leave a comment