Author Archives: Warren Woessner

AAM v. Neapco: Method of Manufacturing Claim Gets the 101 Hook(e)

In American Axle and Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir., July 31, 2020), a split panel of Judges Dyk, Moore and Taranto, on rehearing, slightly modified their earlier opinion that most of the claims of U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Section 112(2) - Indefiniteness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Dana-Farber v. Ono – Co-Inventorship Rules

The pun is intentional, since in Dana-Farber Cancer Inst. v. Ono Pharm. Co., Ltd, Appeal No. 2019-2050 (Fed. Cir., July 14, 2020), a Fed. Cir. Panel of Judges Lourie, Newman and Stoll, Lourie writing, affirmed a district court ruling that … Continue reading

Posted in Inventorship | Tagged | Leave a comment

USPTO Announces Fast-Track Ex Parte Appeals Pilot Program

July 1, 2020 USPTO Press Release: “WASHINGTON — The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to begin accepting petitions for expedited resolution of ex parte appeals. The ‘Fast-Track … Continue reading

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

Biogen v. Mylan: When Does a Specification Fail to Describe a Newly-Presented Claim?

The disclosure requirements that will meet the written description requirement of s. 112(1) had a fairly mundane priority policing role prior to the expansion of the importance of the requirement in the biotech cases leading up to the en banc … Continue reading

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , | Leave a comment