<?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 &#187; biotechnology law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/tag/biotechnology-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +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>Top 2011 IP Stories on Patents4Life</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/top-2011-ip-stories-on-patents4life/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/top-2011-ip-stories-on-patents4life/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ANDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayh-Dole Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caraco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Danner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft v i4i]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saint-gobain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schutz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stanford v Roche]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WDR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I spent a day or two looking back over the breaking IP news that resulted in posts on Patents4Life. I wrote most of them, but want to take a pause to thank regular contributors Paul Cole, Ron Schutz and Stefan Danner for their help. Patents4Life was originally intended to be a “blawg” focused on IP [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/top-2011-ip-stories-on-patents4life/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AMP Petitions for Cert. and A Look Back</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:34:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of Molecular Pathology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRCA DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chakrabarty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diagnostic methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SLW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fed. Cir.’s opinion of July 29th, that isolated BRCA DNA sequences are patentable subject matter. Its brief (a copy available at the end of this post) contains little that is new in the way of argumentation, and relies heavily on the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/amp-petitions-for-cert-and-a-look-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oral Argument in Mayo v. Prometheus – Why Mayo Will Lose</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prometheus v. Mayo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 7th at 10:05 a.m., the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript at end of this post) in the “Prometheus case,” presented by Stephen M. Shapiro of Meyer Brown (Mayo) and Richard P. Bess of Latham &#38; Watkins. Solicitor General Verrilli also argued.  In earlier posts on this appeal, e.g., on November 7th, I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/oral-argument-in-mayo-v-prometheus-%e2%80%93-why-mayo-will-lose/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BIO&#8217;s Modest Proposal &#8211; Eliminate Rule 56</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/bios-modest-proposal-eliminate-rule-56/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/bios-modest-proposal-eliminate-rule-56/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></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[Rule 56]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BIO recently sent Director Kappos 13 pages of comments on the PTO&#8217;s proposed revisions to 37 C.F.R. §1.56(b). (A copy of the comments is available at the end of this post.) BIO clearly is struggling to reconcile the differing views  of its members, and mostly succeeds. The comments give a good background on the development [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/bios-modest-proposal-eliminate-rule-56/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excerpts From Amicus Briefs Supporting Prometheus</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amicus brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark corallo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mayo v Prometheus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This intriguing compilation &#8220;Excerpts From 15 AMICI Briefs Supporting Respondent Prometheus: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,&#8221; was sent to me by Mark Corallo of Corallo Media Strategies, Inc., Alexandria, VA. UNH Law used to be Franklin Pierce Law Center. Interestingly, SAP filed an amicus brief. Not surprisingly, so did Myriad. Key Excerpts &#8211; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/excerpts-from-amicus-briefs-supporting-prometheus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPO Ruling On Inventiveness Of Drug Polymorphs</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/epo-ruling-on-inventiveness-of-drug-polymorphs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/epo-ruling-on-inventiveness-of-drug-polymorphs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EP and UK Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Danner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polymorphs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T777/08]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 drug polymorphs. A PDF of the entire newsletter is attached at the end of this [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/11/epo-ruling-on-inventiveness-of-drug-polymorphs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Infringement by Unobvious Changes – A Look (Way) Back</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/infringement-by-unobvious-changes-%e2%80%93-a-look-way-back/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/infringement-by-unobvious-changes-%e2%80%93-a-look-way-back/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctrine of Equivalents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctrine of equivalents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></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[saint-gobain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a much younger attorney, I gave a presentation at the 1990 AIPLA Annual Meeting:  &#8220;A Review of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Relating to Infringement&#8221; (AIPLA Selected Legal Papers, 9, 3 (July 1991)), in which I wrestled with the question of whether or not a novel and unobvious chemical composition would infringe under the doctrine [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/infringement-by-unobvious-changes-%e2%80%93-a-look-way-back/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obviousness = Equivalence? Saint-Gobain v. Siemens</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/obviousness-equivalence-saint-gobain-v-siemens/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/obviousness-equivalence-saint-gobain-v-siemens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctrine of Equivalents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctrine of equivalents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LSO crystals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saint-gobain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[siemens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1518</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Saint-Gobain Ceramics (“S-G”) has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fed. Cir. panel below, 647 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) in which the panel decision refused to reverse a district court decision that instructed the jury that it could find infringement  by S-G under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) of a Siemens Medical Solutions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/obviousness-equivalence-saint-gobain-v-siemens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cordis v. BSC – Therasense at Work</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/cordis-v-bsc-%e2%80%93-therasense-at-work/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/cordis-v-bsc-%e2%80%93-therasense-at-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bsc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cordis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week the Fed. Cir. affirmed the district court’s finding of no inequitable conduct, due to the failure of the applicant or his attorney to cite a relevant prior art reference in a parent application that yielded the two patents-in-suit. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., App. No. 2010-1311, -1316 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2011). [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/10/cordis-v-bsc-%e2%80%93-therasense-at-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Myriad Petition For Rehearing Denied</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 13, 2011, the Fed. Cir. panel in AMP v. Myriad denied AMP’s (read ACLU’s) petition for rehearing by the panel. (A copy of the petition can be found at the end of this post.) In challenging the holding that the  claimed isolated DNA molecules are not products of nature, AMP argued that “the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/09/myriad-petition-for-rehearing-denied/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

