Categories
Archives
Receive Email Updates
-
-
-
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021 
Disclaimer
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
-
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner
Pages
Archives
Tag Archives: Federal Circuit
Supreme Court to Review Monsanto v. Bowman
On Friday, Oct 5th, the Supreme Court granted cert. to review the Fed. Cir.’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, App. no. 2010-1068 (Fed. Cir. September 21, 2011). (A copy of the decision is at the end of this post.) … Continue reading
Posted in Ag Biotechnology, Exhaustion of Rights
Tagged biotechnology, biotechnology law, biotechnology news, corn, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, Monsanto Tech Agreement, Monstanto v Bowman, patent attorney, Patent Law, patent strategy, seeds, Supreme Court, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Federal Circuit Knocks Outside the Box’s Inequitable Conduct Charges Out of the Box
The following is a guest post from Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner’s associate Ricardo Moran. The issues on appeal were whether Travel Caddy, Inc. had committed inequitable conduct for: (i) not disclosing the existence of the litigation on U.S. Patent No. … Continue reading
PERSONALIZED MEDICINE TAKES OFF WHILE DIAGNOSTIC ASSAYS ARE GROUNDED
A front-page article yesterday in the New York Times and other major newspapers reminded me that drug development and methods of medical treatment will be driven by the genomics of increasingly sub-divided patient populations. As reported by GenomeWeb, summarizing an … Continue reading
1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc. – Specific Intent Means Specific Intent
On September 13th, the Fed. Cir. reversed a district court ruling that the inventor and the attorney who prosecuted a chain of applications claimed multi-media entertainment systems had committed inequitable conduct by failing to disclose three “relevant” references at various … Continue reading