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
Category Archives: Govt Policy/PTO Policy
Federal March-In Rights Meet Clawbacks – The Future of 35 USC ss. 200-212
This post could have been “The Revival of the March-In Rights of the Bayh-Dole Act.” The passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 permitted universities to take title to inventions made with federal funding and grant licenses to commercial entities. … Continue reading
Congress and Trump are out of step on Intellectual Property
This is a guest post from Russell Slifer that first appeared on The Hill (8/30/2018). The Trump administration started its trade war this year with China under the auspices of countering Beijing’s theft of U.S. intellectual property. There is no doubt … Continue reading
Do You Really Want to File for Pharma Patent Protection in Canada, India or Ecuador?
IPO Letter Reports Weaknesses in IP Protection Around the World In a 27 page letter dated February 8, 2018 and sent to Sue Chang at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Executive Director of IPO, Mark Lauroesch, extensively … Continue reading
Posted in Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Int'l Practice and Policy, Non-U.S. Practice
Tagged Global IP, International IP, IPO
1 Comment
Exhausted by Exhaustion: Impression Products v. Lexmark
Please revisit Don Chisum’s and Janice Mueller’s comments on Impression Products v. Lexmark, No. 151189 (S. Ct. May 30, 2017), in which the Court held that a seller of a patented printer cartridge had exhausted its patent rights, so that … Continue reading