<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Biotechnology Patent Law Blog &#124; Patents4Life by Warren Woessner</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 18:40:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.patents4life.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>SLW Invites You To A Free Webinar – America Invents Act: What Corporate Counsel Need To Know</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/slw-invites-you-to-a-free-webinar-%e2%80%93-america-invents-act-what-corporate-counsel-need-to-know/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/slw-invites-you-to-a-free-webinar-%e2%80%93-america-invents-act-what-corporate-counsel-need-to-know/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 18:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Conferences and Classes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kevin greenleaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lissi mojica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please join Schwegman, Lundberg &#38; Woessner, P.A. for an hour-long discussion on how combining litigation, reexamination, and interference results in the USPTO’s new adversarial proceedings: inter partes review and post-grant review. The AIA offers these proceedings to provide efficient patentability decisions designed to reduce the costs of litigation. Accused infringers must weigh potential estoppels against [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/slw-invites-you-to-a-free-webinar-%e2%80%93-america-invents-act-what-corporate-counsel-need-to-know/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Institutes “QUICK PATH” IDS PILOT Program</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/uspto-institutes-%e2%80%9cquick-path%e2%80%9d-ids-pilo-program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/uspto-institutes-%e2%80%9cquick-path%e2%80%9d-ids-pilo-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 16:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[USPTO Practice and Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDS filings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USPTO has announced the implementation of a pilot program, effective from May 16th until September 30th, to permit applicants to file IDS statements after payment of the issue fee in utility and reissue applications, without the need to continue prosecution by filing a “working” RCE with the IDS. The goal of the program is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/uspto-institutes-%e2%80%9cquick-path%e2%80%9d-ids-pilo-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Montgomery – “Unbounded” Inherency</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/in-re-montgomery-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cunbounded%e2%80%9d-inherency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/in-re-montgomery-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cunbounded%e2%80%9d-inherency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 17:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anticipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in re Montgomery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Montgomery, App no. 2011-1376 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012) (a copy is available at the end of this post), a divided panel affirmed the Board’s decision that a claim to a “new use for an old compound” was inherently anticipated by a reference disclosed in a proposed clinical trial that had not been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/in-re-montgomery-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cunbounded%e2%80%9d-inherency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Otsuka v. Sandoz &#8211; Motivation Trumps Structure</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/otsuda-v-sandoz-motivation-trumps-structure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/otsuda-v-sandoz-motivation-trumps-structure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 13:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hatch-Waxman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Otsuka v. Sandoz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent decision of the Fed. Cir. in Otsuka v. Sandoz, App. No. 2011-1126, -1127 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2012) continues the courts admirable work in defining obviousness post-KSR. This case revisits the standards involved in making out a prima-facie case of structural obviousness. What is particularly interesting in this decision is the weight – [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/otsuda-v-sandoz-motivation-trumps-structure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prometheus Q/A Results: Does Patent Eligibility Impact Biotech Research?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/prometheus-qa-results-does-patent-eligibility-impact-biotech-research/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/prometheus-qa-results-does-patent-eligibility-impact-biotech-research/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 18:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robin chadwick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A guest post from shareholder Robin Chadwick of SLW. A quick survey of folks who read this blog indicates that funding for 50% of respondents’ R&#38;D is affected by whether or not a project was patentable. Similarly, 50% of respondents report that aspects of R&#38;D are modified by whether their R&#38;D is patentable. Most of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/prometheus-qa-results-does-patent-eligibility-impact-biotech-research/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fed. Cir. Orders Briefing in Myriad Remand</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/fed-cir-orders-briefing-in-myriad-remand/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/fed-cir-orders-briefing-in-myriad-remand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 13:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 30th, in response to the Supreme Court’s GVR of the Myriad appeal (AMP et al. are still trying to get the claims to isolated DNA molecules and the use of a transgenic cell comprising the BRCA1 gene to screen potential anti-cancer drugs—claim 20&#8211; declared patent-ineligible as natural products or natural phenomena), the Fed. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/05/fed-cir-orders-briefing-in-myriad-remand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sherley v. Sibelius – The Undead Threat To Stem Cell Funding</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/sherley-v-sibelius-%e2%80%93-the-undead-threat-to-stem-cell-funding/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/sherley-v-sibelius-%e2%80%93-the-undead-threat-to-stem-cell-funding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stem Cells/Cloning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dickey-wicker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hESC research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stem cell research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stem cells]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=2002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Green Energy Sources When a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. dismissed a preliminary injunction obtained by plaintiffs in April 2011, and the lower court judge then  dismissed plaintiffs’ suit to block the Administration’s guidelines permitting funding for embryonic stem cell research as violative of the Dickey-Wicker amendment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/sherley-v-sibelius-%e2%80%93-the-undead-threat-to-stem-cell-funding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eurand v. Mylan –A “School Of  Obviousness&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/eurand-v-mylan-%e2%80%93a-%e2%80%9cschool-of-obviousness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/eurand-v-mylan-%e2%80%93a-%e2%80%9cschool-of-obviousness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eurand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eurand v mylan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge O'Malley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I read the April 16th decision (App. No. 2011-1399, -1409 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2012)) (a copy is available at the end of this post) in which a Fed. Cir. panel of Newman, O’Malley and Reyna reversed a district court’s finding that two Aptalis patents on a controlled-release form of a muscle relaxant were [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/eurand-v-mylan-%e2%80%93a-%e2%80%9cschool-of-obviousness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Major Changes to IP Law in Australia Enacted</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/major-changes-to-ip-law-in-australia-enacted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/major-changes-to-ip-law-in-australia-enacted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Int'l Practice and Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freehills Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Gumley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This guest post by Tom Gumley, PhD, a partner in the well-known Freehills Patent and Trademark firm provides a lengthy guide to the changes wrought by Australia’s new patent law, that was enacted on April 15, 2012. The law brings Australia closer to the US in many of its legal standards and, like the AIA, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/major-changes-to-ip-law-in-australia-enacted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Reverses In Caraco Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/supreme-court-reverses-in-caraco-appeal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/supreme-court-reverses-in-caraco-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hatch-Waxman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ANDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caraco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Kagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan (a copy can be found at the end of this post), the Court reversed the Fed. Cir.’s divided 2010 decision that an ANDA filer (a “generic drug company”) sued in para. IV litigation cannot assert a counterclaim that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/04/supreme-court-reverses-in-caraco-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

