Tag Archives: ip

Rapid Litigation v. CellzDirect – A Break in the 101 Wall

On July 5, 2016, a three – judge Fed. Circuit panel of Moore, Prost and Stoll (Appeal no. 2015-1570) reversed the district court’s holding that claims to a method of isolating “hardy” twice -frozen hepatocytes (as I called them in my … Continue reading

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

Bascom v. AT&T — Patent Eligibility Meet Patentability

…..Or Judge Newman proposes a blended approach when “Abstract Idea” or “Inventive Concept” is at issue. In Bascom v. AT&T, Appeal no. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016, Fed. Cir.), panel of Judges Newman, O’Malley and Chen reversed the district court’s finding that … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USPTO will “Fast Track” Cancer Immunotherapy Applications

On June 29, 2016, Director Lee promulgated rules to implement a one-year pilot program to effectively grant “Fast Track” status to applications with at least one claim to treating cancer using immunotherapy. (A copy of this document can be found … Continue reading

Posted in USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Merck’s Solvaldi® Patents Unenforceable for Egregious Misconduct

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04057-BLE (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), Judge Beth Freeman, sitting in equity, found that the record compelled a finding that Merck and its employee “D” had obtained asserted patents … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments