<?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; Paul Cole</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/tag/paul-cole/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>HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES v. ELI LILLY – Increased European Harmony?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/human-genome-sciences-v-eli-lilly-%e2%80%93-increased-european-harmony/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/human-genome-sciences-v-eli-lilly-%e2%80%93-increased-european-harmony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EP and UK Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eli Lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Paul Cole, European Patent Attorney, Lucas &#38; Co &#8211; Warlingham, UK Judgement &#8211; Human Genome Sciences Inc (Appellant) v Eli Lilly and Company (Respondent) The above proceedings relate to European Patent (UK) 0,939,804 concerning a new  human  protein called Neutrokine-α. The specification explained (i) the existence and amino acid sequence of Neutrokine-α, (ii) the nucleotide [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/human-genome-sciences-v-eli-lilly-%e2%80%93-increased-european-harmony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas &#38; Co, Warlingham, UK Those prosecuting patent applications before the USPTO, the EPO and other examining patent offices confront on a daily basis objections of the kind: “A is known from X, B is known from Y; there was no invention in combining A with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/08/obviousness-objections-based-on-combinations-of-references-%e2%80%93-consistent-warnings-from-the-cafc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UK Patent Applications On The Fast Track – Nothing Extra Payable</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/uk-patent-applications-on-the-fast-track-%e2%80%93-nothing-extra-payable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/uk-patent-applications-on-the-fast-track-%e2%80%93-nothing-extra-payable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-U.S. Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fast track]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCT application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK IP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guest post from Paul Cole of Lucas &#38; Co. Claims searched, examined and approved for grant (subject to publication and possible third party comments) within six working days? Not only theoretically possible but actually achieved in an application filed earlier this year at the UK IP Office through our firm. And in contrast to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/02/uk-patent-applications-on-the-fast-track-%e2%80%93-nothing-extra-payable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A European view of RCT v. Microsoft &#8211; A Pyrrhic victory?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/a-european-view-of-rct-v-microsoft-a-pyrrhic-victory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/a-european-view-of-rct-v-microsoft-a-pyrrhic-victory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCT v. Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Paul Cole The law gets into a mess when a court does the right things for the wrong reasons. By way of introduction, the present proceedings concern a method for the production of halftone images created at the University of Rochester, and the following image and background information were downloaded from their website: Printing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/a-european-view-of-rct-v-microsoft-a-pyrrhic-victory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals &#8211; EPO Enlarged Appeal Board decisions G2/07 and G1/08 &#8211; Essentially Biological Processes</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/essentially-biological-processes-for-the-production-of-plants-and-animals-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-decisions-g207-and-g108-essentially-biological-processes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/essentially-biological-processes-for-the-production-of-plants-and-animals-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-decisions-g207-and-g108-essentially-biological-processes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EP and UK Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Paul Cole Opinions were handed down on 9th December in the above two cases concerning the scope of the exclusion of a.53(b) EPC 1973. That article is further defined in r.23b(5) EPC 1973, now r.26(5) EPC 2000 which specifies that such a process is essentially biological if it consists essentially of natural phenomena such [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/12/essentially-biological-processes-for-the-production-of-plants-and-animals-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-decisions-g207-and-g108-essentially-biological-processes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Happy Belated Birthday to Patents4Life! We are One.</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/happy-belated-birthday-to-patents4life-we-are-one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/happy-belated-birthday-to-patents4life-we-are-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[About SLW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schutz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last Wednesday, Patents4Life forgot to celebrate its first anniversary. I have done a lot of writing, and recruiting of some writers (particular thanks to Paul Cole of Lucas &#38; Co., UK, and Ronald J. Schutz of Robins Kaplan in Minneapolis for their posts on European law and practice and US litigation, respectively). I would also [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/happy-belated-birthday-to-patents4life-we-are-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hearing fixed for “Broccoli” and “Tomatoes” cases before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal,  G 0002/07 and G 0001/08</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/hearing-fixed-for-%e2%80%9cbroccoli%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9ctomatoes%e2%80%9d-cases-before-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-g-000207-and-g-000108/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/hearing-fixed-for-%e2%80%9cbroccoli%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9ctomatoes%e2%80%9d-cases-before-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-g-000207-and-g-000108/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-U.S. Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Post from Paul Cole The EPC prohibits patents for essentially biological processes and the referred questions relate to the degree and nature of human technical intervention, which is necessary for that provision not to apply.  Case G 0002/07 “Broccoli” concerns EP-B-1 069 819 Plant Bioscience Limited  which has been opposed by Syngenta Participations AG and Groupe [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/hearing-fixed-for-%e2%80%9cbroccoli%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9ctomatoes%e2%80%9d-cases-before-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-g-000207-and-g-000108/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sustained release fluvastatin formulations – The UK Court of Appeal opinion in Activis UK Limited v Novartis AG [2010] EWCA Civ 82</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/sustained-release-fluvastatin-formulations-%e2%80%93-the-uk-court-of-appeal-opinion-in-activis-uk-limited-v-novartis-ag-2010-ewca-civ-82/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/sustained-release-fluvastatin-formulations-%e2%80%93-the-uk-court-of-appeal-opinion-in-activis-uk-limited-v-novartis-ag-2010-ewca-civ-82/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-U.S. Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Post from Paul Cole Sometimes a decision as to obviousness hinges on a single short point. In Graham v John Deere, the tipping point testimony was during cross-examination of the witness for the patentee, when he said that the allegedly inventive feature made no significant difference to the operation of the device. Once that evidence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/sustained-release-fluvastatin-formulations-%e2%80%93-the-uk-court-of-appeal-opinion-in-activis-uk-limited-v-novartis-ag-2010-ewca-civ-82/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Views of the EPO Enlarged Appeal Board in Treatment by surgery/MEDI-PHYSICS G 0001/07</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/under-what-circumstances-is-injection-a-prohibited-surgical-method-views-of-the-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-in-treatment-by-surgerymedi-physics-g-000107/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/under-what-circumstances-is-injection-a-prohibited-surgical-method-views-of-the-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-in-treatment-by-surgerymedi-physics-g-000107/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-U.S. Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Cole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under what circumstances is injection a prohibited surgical method? Views of the EPO Enlarged Appeal Board in Treatment by surgery/MEDI-PHYSICS G 0001/07 .  Opinion From Paul Cole The present proceedings resulted from a referral in decision T 0992/03 relating to EP-A-1066537. That specification was concerned with magnetic resonance methods for imaging the pulmonary and/or cardiac vasculature [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/02/under-what-circumstances-is-injection-a-prohibited-surgical-method-views-of-the-epo-enlarged-appeal-board-in-treatment-by-surgerymedi-physics-g-000107/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

