AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting Panel to Address Patentability Challenges

Warren Woessner will be joined by two other well-known patent attorneys,  Rodney Sparks of the University of Virginia Patent Foundation and Hans Sauer of BIO, in Philadelphia on September 13th. The panel will try to update the status of the major issues in life sciences patentability, including DNA and diagnostic methods in view of Mayo/Myriad; methods of treatment post-Ariad and inherent anticipation in the context of new uses for known compounds. “You can’t patent that! Can you?” is a question that is becoming increasingly difficult to answer.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Appellate Court Ruling Permits Continued NIH Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On August 24th, the D.C. Cir. ruling dismissing the suit brought to block any federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was affirmed. Stem cell researchers can breathe a bit more easily, and keep the lights on in their labs – for the next few months at least.

Read short article here.

Posted in Stem Cells/Cloning | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Admissibility of Disclaimers – New Lessons From The EPO Technical Boards of Appeal

The following is a guest post from the 8/12 newsletter of Dr. Stefan Danner of DHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Last year, the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) handed down its decision in case G2/10 relating to the admissibility of disclaimers whose subject matter was disclosed as an embodiment (i.e. ‘positively disclosed’ disclaimers) in the application as originally filed.1

The EBA ruled that an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer disclaiming from it subject matter disclosed in the application as filed infringes Article 123(2) EPC if the subject matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer is not, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as originally filed.

Determining whether or not that is the case requires an assessment of the overall technical circumstances of the individual case under consideration, taking into account the nature and extent of the disclosure in the application, the nature and extent of the disclaimed subject matter and its relationship with the subject matter remaining in the claim after the amendment. In other words, the examination of the admissibility of a disclaimer for compliance with Article 123(2) EPC has to be made separately for the disclaimer per se and for the subject matter remaining in the claim.

The entire newsletter can be found here.

Posted in EP and UK Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chisum Patent Academy Announced 2013 Seminar Dates

This seminar series, taught by Donald Chisum, the leading authority on evolution  in patent law, and my former law clerk, Prof. Janice Mueller, explore contemporary developments in patent law in detail.  How about a session on how to respond to the new s. 101 Mayo/Myriad rejections that Examiner’s have begun to lay on us?

For more information, go to https://www.chisum-patent-academy.com/.

 

Posted in Conferences and Classes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment