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: Supreme Court
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Today, the Supreme Court again disregarded the views of the Federal government regarding whether to grant certiorari, here in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, and in some ways the only positive outcome is that the Court has shown it is willing to refuse to take action is cases other than…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court's consideration of the standards for satisfying the enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been occasioned for the first time in over a century by the Court's granting certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi. This has not surprisingly generated a great deal of interest and amicus briefing. While…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court's consideration of the standards for satisfying the enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been occasioned for the first time in over a century by the Court's granting certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi. This has not surprisingly generated a great deal of interest and amicus briefing. While…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court's consideration of the standards for satisfying the enablement provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been occasioned for the first time in over a century by the Court's granting certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi. This has not surprisingly generated a great deal of interest and amicus briefing. While some…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – "Hope springs eternal [in the human breast]" (Alexander Pope) and "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" (the latter attributed variably to Albert Einstein and Werner Erhart) are two aphorisms that irresistibly come to mind with the recent filing of a petition for certiorari by…
-
By Aaron Gin — Dr. Stephen Thaler, Ph.D., a computer scientist and inventor, has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the question of whether the Patent Act restricts the definition of an "inventor" to human beings. The petition represents an opportunity for the Court to clarify whether an artificial intelligence (AI)…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi last week in an extended session with argument from the parties and the U.S. government. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey Lamken, Respondents by Paul Clement, and the Government by Colleen Sindak. The Justices showed a great deal of interest, albeit with…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – During oral argument before the Supreme Court on Monday in Amgen v. Sanofi, all three advocates (Jeff Lamken for Amgen, Paul Clement for Sanofi, and Colleen Sindzak for the United States) had reason to reference and discuss an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Gregory Winter and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi is the first time in almost a hundred years that the Court has deigned to consider sufficiency of disclosure decisions, in this case enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). While these circumstances themselves might motivate amici to file briefs with…
Patent Docs 