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
“An Unusual Case” – Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.
I am going to try to summarize the Fed. Cir.’s holding and reasoning in Promega Corp. v. Life Tech Corp., Appeal No. 2013-1011 et al. (Fed. Cir., November 13, 2017), without burying you in the procedural details, but it won’t … Continue reading
Posted in Infringement, Litigation Issues
Tagged Infringement, Promega, Promega v Life Technologies
Leave a comment
Things to be Thankful for in IP Wonderland
Apart from the carnage wrought by the ever-expanding scope of s. 101 rejections and the tightening of the written description requirement, there were still a number of events/trends in 2017 to applaud or at least to note as “worthwhile.” I … Continue reading
Posted in Sovereign Immunity
Leave a comment
Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington – Where Did Ali Go Off the Rails?
In view of the IP hornets’ nest stirred up by Judge Bryson’s ruling in Allergan and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Teva Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (E.D. Tex. , Oct. 16, 2017), which may or may not have … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Interpretation
4 Comments
In re Smith, International, Inc. – What’s a “Body” to Do?
In re Smith, International, Inc., Appeal no. 2016-2303 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 16, 2017)(”Smith”), the Fed. Cir. reversed the PTAB (that had affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of the claims) on the basis that the Board had subjected an element in Smith’s … Continue reading
Posted in Inter Partes Review
Leave a comment
