Category Archives: Patent Eligible Subject Matter

BIO IP & Diagnostics Conference – Is the Titanic Turning Around?

Posted on September 21, 2018 by Warren Woessner

On September 28th, I will be moderating a panel on patenting diagnostic tests – and related subject matter – such as methods of medical treatment, at BIO’s annual IP & Diagnostics Symposium in Alexandria, VA. At the beginning of 2018, … Continue reading →

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

Ex parte Parenteau – PTAB Skips Step One of the Mayo/Alice Test?

Posted on September 14, 2018 by Warren Woessner

In ex parte Ho, the subject of my last post, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims to a population of bone marrow cells obtained by two-stage culturing that expressed or failed to express certain markers. The PTAB wrote … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Ho – Burden Shifting in s.101 Rejections

Posted on September 12, 2018 by Warren Woessner

In Judge Plager’s concurrence-in-part in Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc., he describes the “small puzzle” present in the Mayo/Alice analysis of a claim identified as directed to an abstract idea: “[I]f a court, after reviewing challenged claims in light of … Continue reading →

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

Bhagat v. Iancu – Did the Myriad Decision Overrule Funk Bros.?

Posted on September 10, 2018 by Warren Woessner

A September 6th post by Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO (“A Mixture of Known Compounds is Unpatentable without a Transformation“) led me to a closer reading of the cert. petition filed in Bhagat v. Iancu, (Case No. 18-277) an appeal from … Continue reading →

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