<?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; Warren Woessner</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/tag/warren-woessner/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>Supplemental Examination Decision Tree &#8211; Lots of Dead Branches?</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/supplemental-examination-decision-tree-lots-of-dead-branches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/supplemental-examination-decision-tree-lots-of-dead-branches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AIA Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inequitable conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[item of information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reexamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, I wish it were that simple, but I keep trying to conjure examples that would lead me to use supplemental examination to “purge inequitable conduct (IC)” that I discover after my patent issues, and which could provide the basis for a successful IC attack on the patent. (Even the Office doesn’t presume that charges [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/supplemental-examination-decision-tree-lots-of-dead-branches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PTO Proposes Supplemental Examination Rules – Extremely Expensive and Incredibly Complex</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/pto-proposes-supplemental-examination-rules-%e2%80%93-extremely-expensive-and-incredibly-complex/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/pto-proposes-supplemental-examination-rules-%e2%80%93-extremely-expensive-and-incredibly-complex/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:40:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AIA Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1765</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 25, 2012, the USPTO published proposed rules to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). This procedure is intended to be utilized by patent owners to “clean up” patents of iffy validity before, say, asserting them in litigation or selling them. 77 Fed. Reg. 3666. This provision has been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/pto-proposes-supplemental-examination-rules-%e2%80%93-extremely-expensive-and-incredibly-complex/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Blog On AIA Aims For Co-Op Approach</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/new-blog-on-aia-aims-for-co-op-approach/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/new-blog-on-aia-aims-for-co-op-approach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AIA Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leonard street dienard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSBA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schwegman Lundberg Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[william mitchell law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1738</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With a tidal wave of proposed regulations implementing the AIA poised to hit IP practitioners – ready or not – it seemed worthwhile to point out a new “Blawg” recently launched to help keep our heads above the murky legal waters to come. My firm, Schwegman Lundberg &#38; Woessner, in cooperation with the IP group [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/new-blog-on-aia-aims-for-co-op-approach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Rulings of the European Court of Justice on SPCs</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/recent-rulings-of-the-european-court-of-justice-on-spcs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/recent-rulings-of-the-european-court-of-justice-on-spcs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EP and UK Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dhs patentanwalts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Danner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european court of justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Attached you will find the newsletter from DHS Patentanwalts GmbH, provided to us by Dr. Stefan Danner. In the last few months, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has handed down several decisions relating to the grant and validity of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs; i.e. patent term extensions). Thereof, the following rulings are generally considered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2012/01/recent-rulings-of-the-european-court-of-justice-on-spcs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>Biotech IP Newsletters</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/biotech-ip-newsletters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/biotech-ip-newsletters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-U.S. Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Stefan Danner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=1697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Find below biotech IP newsletters recently provided by Dr. Stefan Danner. SPCs For Combination Products &#8211; Opinion Of The Advocate General EPO Ruling On The Patentability Of Medical Treatments By Therapy &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2011/12/biotech-ip-newsletters/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

