Posts Tagged ‘patent strategy’

Finally, A Reasonable Decision

Monday, June 24th, 2013

This is a guest post from Greg Stark, attorney at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner.

Attached at the end of this post is an annotated copy of the June 21st decision from the Federal Circuit in Ultramercial v. Hulu. The underlying patent is directed towards a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted material over the Internet.  Chief Judge Rader pens a good decision for the software patent community attempting to clarify (and mitigate) any fallout from the CLS decision.  The decision is careful not to craft new law, but rather to apply previous precedent in a more thoughtful manner.

Rader is careful to point out that all issued patents should carry the presumption of being directed to patent subject matter, and that this presumption must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.  In highlighting the presumption of validity, Rader appears to be attempting to prevent courts from boiling claims down to their abstract idea and then routinely deeming them ineligible subject matter (as all meaningful limitations are removed in the process).

(more…)

Therasense In Action – Warren Woessner To Speak At AIPLA

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

On Saturday, October 27th, I will one of the speakers in the Closing Plenary Session of the Annual AIPLA Meeting in Washington, DC. Since I was assigned to do part of the “Ethics” track, I will be speaking on post-Therasense Fed. Cir. opinions. Is the defense of inequitable conduct a limping zombie that can be easily avoided if you don’t just run into a corner and scream, or does it still have fangs? Also speaking on “Ethics – Privacy” will be Prof. Paul Ohm from the University of Colorado School of Law. David H. Harper will sum up the year in copyrights and trade secrets, Steven J. Wadya will handle trademark law developments, and Mark Lemley of Stanford will do the patent law wrap-up.  Moderator Mary Kocialski of Oracle will try to keep us on schedule (Good Luck!).

From a biotech perspective, probably the most interesting session will be the Educational Session sponsored by the Biotechnology/IP Practice in Europe and (I think) the Chemical Practice Committees from 330-530 on Thursday that will – thoroughly, I am sure – discuss the “antibody exception” to the written description requirement. Apparently, reports of its demise in the wake of Ariad were untimely. I particularly anticipate learning the USPTO perspective. Now, how about a session on patenting diagnostic assays post-Prometheus and Myriad?

Supreme Court to Review Monsanto v. Bowman

Monday, October 8th, 2012

On Friday, Oct 5th, the Supreme Court granted cert. to review the Fed. Cir.’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, App. no. 2010-1068 (Fed. Cir. September 21, 2011). (A copy of the decision is at the end of this post.) Bowman, a soybean farmer, had purchased commodity (mixed -source) seed from a local grain elevator to plant as a “second crop” since he did not want to pay the higher cost that a licensed seed grower would charge. All sales to growers of the Monsanto seeds in question – these particular seeds are transgenic in that they carry, and pass on, the trait of resistance to glyphosate – are subject to a “standard form limited use license,” the “Monsanto Technology Agreement,” that licensed the two patents-in-suit to growers under the conditions, inter alia, that they would use the crop for planting only in a single season, not to resell the seed, and not to save seed for replanting. The growers can sell the seed to grain elevators as a commodity – e.g., for use as food or feed.

(more…)

SLW Invites You To A Free Webinar – America Invents Act: What Corporate Counsel Need To Know

Thursday, May 17th, 2012

Please join Schwegman, Lundberg & 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 the benefits of the new proceedings, which provide for a settlement period and limited opportunities for discovery, depositions, claim amendments, and other motions.

The webinar will be on May 23, 2012 12:00 PM (CDT)

To register visit: www.slwip.com/whatnow/ or send an email to events@slwip.com and we’ll register on your behalf

About the Presenters

Lissi Mojica is an officer of SLW and considered to be among the world’s foremost experts in reexamination procedures. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Mojica was a senior advisor at a Washington D.C. patent law firm, and served as an Associate Chair for the firm’s Post-Grant Law/Patent Reexamination Practice Group.

Kevin Greenleaf is a registered patent attorney and an associate at SLW. His practice includes patent procurement and post-grant review, portfolio analysis, technical analysis, and strategic counseling, with emphasis on computer architecture, software, circuit design, semiconductors, and microelectronic fabrication.