Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Bipartisan “Draft Bill” to Amend ss. 100, 101 and 112 Released for Comment

Posted on May 24, 2019 by Warren Woessner

On Wednesday, Senators Tillis and Coons, along with Reps. Collins, Johnson and Stivers released a draft, bipartisan bill to amend ss.100 and 101 to void the “judicial exceptions” to patent eligibility. Section 112(f) was also amended to tighten up the … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Novartis v. West-Ward – Lead Compound Analysis v. Motivation to Combine

Posted on May 20, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In Novartis Pharm. v. West-Ward Pharm., Appeal no. 2018-1434 (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2019), a three judge panel of Stoll, Plager and Clevenger affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims of Novartis’ U.S. Pat. No. 8,410,131, directed to using … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?

Posted on May 17, 2019 by Warren Woessner

Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Athena III – Should the Discovery of a Naturally-Occurring Correlation Encompass Recognition of its Practical Utility?

Posted on May 7, 2019 by Warren Woessner

The origin of the idea that natural phenomena, like the law of gravity, cannot be patented, even by their discoverer, is well-settled law. In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court stated, in dictum: “Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment