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: intellectual property
Board Decision in Ex Parte Roberts Doesn’t Make the Cut
This 2008 pre-Bilski decision is of interest since the Board purportedly applied the Diamond v Diehr “standard” – “[t}ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim … Continue reading
COURT “CUSSES OUT” SANOFI – HOLDS OXALIPLATIN PATENT NOT INFRINGED
For some years, Tom Irving of Finnegan Farabow, et al. has been giving a very amusing, but increasingly serious, talk about the dangers of what he calls “Patent Profanity.” The version I heard in May was, “Patently Profane at You … Continue reading
NATURE/BIOTECHNOLOGY SUMMARIZES ARIAD DECISION
A recent article by Ken Garber in Nature/Biotechnology, 27, 494 (June 2009) summarizes the recent Federal Circuit decision invalidating the claims-in-suit in Ariad v. Lilly for failure to meet the WDR. (See my post of April 13, 2009 “Federal Circuit … Continue reading
ABBOTT LABS. v. SANDOZ, INC. – ONE RULE FITS ALL?
Or “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”? Posts and pens have been busy reporting that the Federal Circuit, en banc, overruled Scripps v. Genentech, and ended the debate over whether a product-by-process claims should be construed … Continue reading