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
G S Cleantech Petitions Fed. Cir. for Rehearing En Banc
Before you read this post, please read or re-read my post of March 9, 2020, that summarized the panel decision in some detail. The case involves the district court’s finding of inequitable conduct by both CleanTech and their attorneys via … Continue reading
Patenting Vaccines – A Look Back and the Road Ahead
On May 21 at 11 a.m. Central, four senior members of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner’s Chem/Biotech Group will present a new webinar. Drs. Warren D. Woessner, Janet E. Embretson, Monique Perdok and Robin A. Chadwick will review patenting opportunities and … Continue reading
IPO Chat Channel: Inequitable Conduct – A Refresher & Update – April 23rd
Have findings of inequitable conduct due to egregious misconduct become more common post-Therasense or can a simple failure to disclose material prior art still lead to a finding of inequitable conduct? What are the possible consequences to both litigators and … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56, Prior Art, Uncategorized
Tagged inequitable conduct, prior art, Therasense
Leave a comment
CardioNet v. Infobionics: The Requirement for Improvements in Patent Eligibility
This decision, Appeal No. 2019-1149 (Fed. Cir. April 17th 2020) should have required about 13 pages and could have ended after the first paragraph under Section A. Instead, a split panel required a 23 page majority decision and a 10 … Continue reading