Tag Archives: Federal Circuit

Ignorance is Bliss – for Teva

I did not pay much attention to the fairly recent panel decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharma. USA, 757 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It seemed like a fairly routine panel affirmance of the district court’s finding that … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

USPTO TRIPs over Myriad-Mayo guidance

Timothy W. Roberts, Chartered Patent Attorney; MA (Oxon); LL.D (honoris causa, Sheffield University) Paul G. Cole,  Chartered Patent Attorney;  MA (Oxon); LLM, NottinghamTrent; Visiting Professor, Bournemouth University The above UK-based European Practitioners have today filed comments at the USPTO arguing … Continue reading

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

Myriad Guidance Comments

The USPTO is now publishing comments http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/myriad-mayo_guidance_comments.jsp  

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

Abbvie V. Janssen Biotech –Written Description Requirement Road Map

The recent decision in Abbvie Deutschland v. Janssen Biotech and Centorcor Biologics, App. No. 2013-1338, -1346 (Fed. Cir. , July 1, 2014) deserves more attention than it has received. (A copy of the decision is available at the end of … Continue reading

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