Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc. – A Crack in the Patent Eligibility of Diagnostic Claims?

Posted on March 14, 2018 by Warren Woessner

In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2315, 2016-2341 (Fed. Cir., March 8, 2018) (Non-precedential). A panel of Moore, Bryson and Hughes (Hughes dissenting), upheld a district court decision, following trial, that claims to a method of measuring … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Leave a comment

A Vibration Dampener Fails Mayo/Alice Test in D. Delaware – Is the Decision as Shaky as it Seems?

Posted on March 2, 2018 by Warren Woessner

This is a guest post from Gregory Stark, a Principal of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. The Vibration Dampener decision is not as bad as the headline might suggest, the claims are very broad method of manufacturing claims.  Accordingly, the claims … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | 1 Comment

Cleveland Clinic – Time to Purport an Inventive Concept in a Diagnostic Invention?

Posted on February 28, 2018 by Warren Woessner

As an introduction to this topic, please reread my post of July 5, 2017 about The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics, subtitled “Time to Redefine ‘Inventive Concept’”? The claim were directed to diagnosing the presence of cardiovascular disease (CAD) … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | 1 Comment

Do You Really Want to File for Pharma Patent Protection in Canada, India or Ecuador?

Posted on February 15, 2018 by Warren Woessner

IPO Letter Reports Weaknesses in IP Protection Around the World In a 27 page letter dated February 8, 2018 and sent to Sue Chang at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Executive Director of IPO, Mark Lauroesch, extensively … Continue reading →

Posted in Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Int'l Practice and Policy, Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , | 1 Comment