Novozymes Loses “Possession” Of Its Enzyme

Posted on November 1, 2013 by Warren Woessner

I am not sure how I missed this decision, which came down on July 22nd, but it offers a rather scary hi-def picture as to where the written description requirement of s. 112 has been and where it is headed. This decision, Novozymes A/S v. Dupont Nutrition Biosciences, Appeal No. 2012-1433 (Fed. Cir., July 22, 2013) (copy available at end of this post) rendered by a split panel (Judges Schall and Bryson, with Rader dissenting), affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling nullifying a jury verdict that the claims of Novozymes’ U.S. Patent No. 7,717,723 (a copy found at the end of this post) met the written description requirement.

Continue reading →

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Canada’s ‘’Sister” Prior Art Law Differs From Ours, Eh!

Posted on October 29, 2013 by Warren Woessner

I recently received a well-written post from Smart & Biggar/Feherstonhaugh in Toronto reminding me that a publication by the inventor only shields a later third-party publication from being a bar if the second publication was derived from the inventor and a Canadian application – not a U.S. application—is filed by the inventor within a year of the inventor’s publication. This is not the same as the AIA provisions that allow a publication by the first inventor to avoid the prior art effect of a second publication of the invention, made by a third-party, so long as the first inventor files anywhere within a year of his/her publication.

You can find the entire post here.

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EPO Abolishes Prior “Short” Divisional Guidelines

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Warren Woessner

This is a guest post from Mewburn Ellis of London.

The Administrative Council (the governing body of the European Patent Office) has decided at its meeting on 16 October 2013 to change the regulations regarding the deadline for filing divisional applications, specifically, to abolish the current deadlines.

From 1 April 2014, it will once again be possible to file a divisional application right up to the day before grant of the parent application.  We understand that the new rule will apply to all applications that are pending on or after 1 April 2014, even if a deadline for filing divisional applications under the current regulations had already been set or indeed had passed.  Thus, for many applications, the “window” for filing divisional applications will re-open.

There will also be an additional filing fee for second and subsequent generation divisional applications (i.e. divisionals of an application that is already a divisional application).

The EPO official announcement can be found here.  We will provide further information as it becomes available.

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

In Memoriam: Howard W. Bremer

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Warren Woessner

Howard W. Bremer passed away on Friday, ending a long career at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, where he served as Patent Counsel for 28 years, and continued with emeritus status thereafter. He also was one of the founders of SUPA (Society of University Patent Administrators) which became AUTM in about 1990. He received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering and his Law Degree from UW-Madison, and so was an enthusiastic “double Badger,” like myself.

I knew Howard by reputation both while I was a graduate student in Chemistry, a Post-Doctoral Researcher and a Law Student (WARF supported my Post-Doctoral  Research). I remember speaking to him about a possible position as a patent clerk in the Forest Products Laboratory – WARF didn’t have patent clerkships—I think Howard was about it in IP law. I left Madison in 1981 – there were no jobs for pharma/biotech patent attorneys. In fact, there were very few jobs in biotechnology period.

Continue reading →

Posted in People | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments