Tag Archives: Ariad

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom: Another One Bites The Dust

Posted on November 11, 2013 by Warren Woessner

In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXUS 156554, the U.S. District Ct. for N.D. Cal., granted summary judgment to Ariosa that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 were invalid as directed to patent-ineligible natural phenomena … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged Ariad, Ariosa Diagnostics, biomarkers, cffDNA, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, Myriad, Patent Law, Patentable, Sequenom, Warren Woessner | 3 Comments

AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting Panel to Address Patentability Challenges

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Warren Woessner

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 … Continue reading →

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged Ariad, AUTM, DNA, Hans Sauer, Mayo, Myriad, patentability, Rodney Sparks, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Declines To Review “New And Improved” Written Description Requirement

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Warren Woessner

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied Centocor’s (now “Janssen”) petition for cert. and so let stand a ruling that Centocor’s patents on humanized monoclonal antibodies (covering Abbott’s Humira) are invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement (WDR) of … Continue reading →

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged Ariad, Ariad v. Lilly, biotechnology law, centocor v. abbott, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, Judge Rader, patent attorney, Patent Law, patents, Supreme Court, Warren Woessner, WDR | Leave a comment

Happy Birthday Patents4Life – We Are 2!

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Warren Woessner

Now some of them are not yet carved in judicial stone, being at various stages of appeal, but the sum of KSR, Bilski (well, I guess it was more pro-patent than the strict M or T test it replaced with … Continue reading →