Tag Archives: biotechnology law

Oral Argument in Mayo v. Prometheus – Why Mayo Will Lose

On December 7th at 10:05 a.m., the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript at end of this post) in the “Prometheus case,” presented by Stephen M. Shapiro of Meyer Brown (Mayo) and Richard P. Bess of Latham & Watkins. Solicitor … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BIO’s Modest Proposal – Eliminate Rule 56

BIO recently sent Director Kappos 13 pages of comments on the PTO’s proposed revisions to 37 C.F.R. §1.56(b). (A copy of the comments is available at the end of this post.) BIO clearly is struggling to reconcile the differing views  … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Excerpts From Amicus Briefs Supporting Prometheus

This intriguing compilation “Excerpts From 15 AMICI Briefs Supporting Respondent Prometheus: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,” was sent to me by Mark Corallo of Corallo Media Strategies, Inc., Alexandria, VA. UNH Law used to be Franklin Pierce Law … Continue reading

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

EPO Ruling On Inventiveness Of Drug Polymorphs

Thank you to Dr. Stefan Danner, a German and European Patent Attorney at DHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Munich for letting us post the current issue of the biotech IP newsletter dealing with the recent EPO decision concerning the patentability of … Continue reading

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