Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- 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
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Miscellaneous
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward: Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On January 6, 2020, a bi-partisan coalition of Senators, including Senator Collins (R-ME), Doug Jones (D-AL), Martha McSally (R-AZ), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), introduced the "Ending the Diagnostic Odyssey Act of 2019" to permit states to use Medicaid funding for whole genome sequencing (WGS) analysis in children having certain rate…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — All interferences have filings that are either kept confidential or are entirely procedural in nature. While there is little substantive to discuss, acknowledging them serves the purpose of keeping track of the proceedings; the following papers have been filed in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard…
-
The authors and contributors of Patent Docs wish their readers and families a Happy Holidays! Publication of Patent Docs will resume on December 26th.
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In early November, Senior Party the Broad Institute (along with Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) filed their response to Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") Opposition to the Broad's Substantive Motion No. 1 in Interference No. 105,166. Pursuant…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As previously discussed, Senior Party The Broad Institute (joined by Harvard University and MIT) on October 14th filed Substantive Motion No 2 (to substitute the count) in the current interference over CRISPR technology (No. 106,115). Count 1 of the interference as declared is: An engineered, programmable, non-naturally occurring Type II…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 14th, Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Motion No. 1 to be awarded priority benefit to their earlier priority applications: USSN 61/652,086, filed May 25, 2012 (P1); USSN 61/716,256, filed October 19, 2012 (P2); USSN…
-
The authors and contributors of Patent Docs wish their readers and families a Happy Thanksgiving. Publication of Patent Docs will resume on November 30th.
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — October 14th was a busy day at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the current interference over CRISPR technology (No. 106,115). The Junior Party (the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Motion No. 1 for priority benefit to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 18th, Junior Party (the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its authorized opposition to Substantive Motion No. 1 from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT), which asked for judgment in Interference…
Patent Docs 