Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- USPTO Announces Office Closure on December 24 and December 26
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
about
Month: September 2020
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Novelty is perhaps the principal, most fundamental requirement for patentability, and depriving the public of anything in the prior art must be avoided. The Federal Circuit recently reinforced the primacy of these rubrics in Biogen MA, Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. The issues arose in litigation over Biogen's Rebif* product…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — For those with long memories, last August the Patent Trial and Appeal Board received proposed motions from the parties (University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier, Junior Party, and The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, Senior Party) in Interference No. 106,115. Thereafter, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference") between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Judge Giles Sutherland Rich's most famous aphorism in patent law is "the name of the game is the claim."* This rubric is important to keep in mind when considering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision on motions issued September 10th in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed an Order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, finding that Appellant Walter A. Tormasi lacked the capacity to sue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Mr. Tormasi had filed suit against Appellee Western Digital Corp., asserting that Western Digital…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On September 10th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered its decision on the parties' Motions in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference"). Perhaps the decision of most immediate significance was the Board's decision denying the Senior Party's (The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the…
-
September 22, 2020 – "The Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine: The Intersection of Science and IP Policy" (Morningside IP and IPWatchdog) – 12:00 pm (ET) September 22, 2020 – "Plausibility at the EPO – Exploring the Legacy of Dasatinib" (Mathys & Squire) – 6:00 to 7:00 pm (GMT Summer Time); 11:00 am to 12:00 pm…
-
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Justice will be holding a joint program on September 23-24, 2020 on how patents and copyrights drive value in the life science sector and the effects of collaborations and partnerships, with specific attention paid to the antitrust implications of different cooperation and licensing strategies. The program…
-
Morningside IP and IPWatchdog and will be offering a webinar entitled "The Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine: The Intersection of Science and IP Policy" on September 22, 2020 at 12:00 pm (ET). Jonathan L. Temte, Associate Dean for Public Health and Community Engagement, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; Melissa Brand, Assistant…
-
Mathys & Squire will be offering a webinar entitled "Plausibility at the EPO – Exploring the Legacy of Dasatinib" on September 22, 2020 from 6:00 to 7:00 pm (GMT Summer Time); 11:00 am to 12:00 pm (ET). Anna Gregson and Stpehne Garner of Mathys & Squire LLP will review how the EPO case law has…
Patent Docs 