Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 
Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
-
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner
Pages
Archives
Author Archives: Warren Woessner
Common Patent for European Union Adopted
The European Union has finally decided to adopt a common patent that will be granted in three languages – English, French and German – but will cover all of the 27 EU countries. Note that there is not a perfect … Continue reading
Posted in EP and UK Practice
Tagged biotechnology law, EPO, intellectual property, ip, IP law tools, Patent Law, patents, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Supreme Court Grants Myriad’s Petition for Cert.
I feel a bit like Al Pacino in “The Godfather – Part 3” when he shouts, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!” (Repeated memorably by Silvio Dante in “The Sopranos”.) Now the Supreme Court … Continue reading
Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Tagged human gene, intellectual property, Patent Law, Supreme Court, Warren Woessner
1 Comment
USPTO Director Kappos Resigns
USPTO Director David Kappos has announced that he will leave the Office early next year, perhaps by the end of January. He became the Director in 2009, leaving his position as essentially Head Patent Counsel at IBM. He brought much-needed … Continue reading
Posted in People
Tagged David Kappos, intellectual property, Patent Law, USPTO, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Perkinelmer v. Intema – Biomarker Claims Not Patent Eligible
In Perkinelmer, Inc. v. Intema, Ltd., Appeal no. 2011-1577 (Fed. Cir. November 20, 2012), a panel of the Fed. Cir. reversed the district court and invalidated all of the claims of US Pat. No. 6,573,103 as patent-ineligible in view of … Continue reading