Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (2026)
- Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- PTAB Reverses § 101 Rejection Where Examiner Failed to Follow the Office’s Own Guidance
- Collision Communications v. Samsung: What Good Did the Government’s Statement of Interest Do?
about
Month: November 2006
-
By Donald Zuhn and Paul Berghoff — Few substantive areas of patent law have engendered the warmth of debate that routinely characterizes the written description requirement. The controversy begins with the arguably ambiguous language of Section 112 (does a separate written description requirement even exist?) and is only exacerbated by the factually intensive…
-
By Kevin Noonan — The Patent and Trademark Office has proposed sweeping changes in "continuation’ practice (see Part 1) as well as how claims are examined, which were the subject of a "townhall" meeting held in Chicago on February 1st with Patent Commissioner John Doll and General Counsel James Toupin. At present, an…
-
By Kevin Noonan — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has proposed sweeping changes in patent prosecution practice rules that were discussed at a "townhall" meeting held in Chicago on February 1st with Patent Commissioner John Doll and General Counsel James Toupin. The rules would limit so-called "continuation" practice to one per application,…
Patent Docs 