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
Bascom v. AT&T — Patent Eligibility Meet Patentability
…..Or Judge Newman proposes a blended approach when “Abstract Idea” or “Inventive Concept” is at issue. In Bascom v. AT&T, Appeal no. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016, Fed. Cir.), panel of Judges Newman, O’Malley and Chen reversed the district court’s finding that … Continue reading
USPTO will “Fast Track” Cancer Immunotherapy Applications
On June 29, 2016, Director Lee promulgated rules to implement a one-year pilot program to effectively grant “Fast Track” status to applications with at least one claim to treating cancer using immunotherapy. (A copy of this document can be found … Continue reading
Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc. – How to Flunk s. 101
On June 22d, the Fed. Cir. issued a summarily affirmed the district courts Order that the method claims in suit did not pass the Alice/Mayo test for patentable subject matter. Claim 51 of U.S. patent no. 7787938 is representative: “A … Continue reading
Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Tagged Alice, exergen, Federal Circuit, Mayo, Patent Law, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Same-Day Continuing Applications are Co-pending under s. 120
The outcome of this question of statutory construction was not really in doubt, given the fact that an adverse holding could invalidate thousands of patents which needed same-day copendency to avoid intervening prior art. Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., Appeal no. … Continue reading