Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Senate Committee Releases Outline for Section 101 Reform

Posted on April 18, 2019 by Warren Woessner

On April 18th, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a “Draft Outline of Section 101 Reform” that is intended to provide the basis of legislative amendments to the requirements for patent reform. Apart from the proposal to effectively … Continue reading →

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

Athena’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc – Not All Diagnostic Claims are Equal Under s. 101

Posted on April 15, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In my last post on s. 101, discussing “Cleveland Clinic II” I asked, “Why can’t a diagnostic conclusion be a practical application of a natural law?” and rhetorically answered: “Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t.” In Cleveland Clinic I … Continue reading →

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

Cleveland Clinic II – Why Can’t a Diagnostic Conclusion be a Practical Application of a Natural Law?

Posted on April 4, 2019 by Warren Woessner

Because the Federal Circuit says it can’t, that’s why!  In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the panel held patent-ineligible claims to a method of assessing a test subject’s risk of having … Continue reading →

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

Endo v. Teva – Correlation Diagnostic Plus Treatment is Patent Eligible under s. 101

Posted on March 29, 2019 by Warren Woessner

In Endo v. Teva, Appeal 2017-1240 (Fed. Cir., March 19, 2019), a Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Stoll, Wallach and Clevenger unanimously found patent-eligible claims to a method of treating pain with oxymorphone, based on the inventor’s discovery that there … Continue reading →

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