Tag Archives: ip

Novozymes Loses “Possession” Of Its Enzyme

I am not sure how I missed this decision, which came down on July 22nd, but it offers a rather scary hi-def picture as to where the written description requirement of s. 112 has been and where it is headed. … Continue reading

Posted in Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Canada’s ‘’Sister” Prior Art Law Differs From Ours, Eh!

I recently received a well-written post from Smart & Biggar/Feherstonhaugh in Toronto reminding me that a publication by the inventor only shields a later third-party publication from being a bar if the second publication was derived from the inventor and a … Continue reading

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

EPO Abolishes Prior “Short” Divisional Guidelines

This is a guest post from Mewburn Ellis of London. The Administrative Council (the governing body of the European Patent Office) has decided at its meeting on 16 October 2013 to change the regulations regarding the deadline for filing divisional … Continue reading

Posted in EP and UK Practice | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Will Not Review Therasense Standards – Yet

On October 15, 2013, after reviewing the Government’s Amicus Brief (a copy is available at the end of this post), the Supreme Court denied the petition for cert. filed by Sony Computer Entertainment, one of the defendants in 1st Media, … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment