Tag Archives: Paul Cole

USPTO Myriad-Mayo Guidance Still Not At An Alpha Standard

This is a guest post from Paul Cole. As readers will be aware, the USPTO published revised Guidance on Section 101 eligibility in December 2014 together with Nature-Based Examples and Abstract ideas examples. These materials and the case-law on which … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EPO – New Guidance On Added Subject Matter

A guest post from Paul Cole. Readers will be aware that added subject matter issues have for a long time been a thorny issue for EPO Examination practice. On 7 February 2014 a symposium on EPO practice regarding Art. 123(2) … Continue reading

Posted in EP and UK Practice | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Australia: Cancer Voices v Myriad Opinion Affirmed

This is a guest post from Paul Cole. An opinion was handed down earlier today by the Federal Court of Australia – Full Court (Allsop C.J., Downsett, Kenny, Bennett and Middleton J.J., D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 … Continue reading

Posted in EP and UK Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

USPTO TRIPs over Myriad-Mayo guidance

Timothy W. Roberts, Chartered Patent Attorney; MA (Oxon); LL.D (honoris causa, Sheffield University) Paul G. Cole,  Chartered Patent Attorney;  MA (Oxon); LLM, NottinghamTrent; Visiting Professor, Bournemouth University The above UK-based European Practitioners have today filed comments at the USPTO arguing … Continue reading

Posted in Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment