Tag Archives: ip

Microsoft V. i4i – Prosecution And The “Variable Proof Regime”

The Government recently weighed in on this important appeal with its amicus brief, signed by Neal Katyal, Acting Solicitor General. (A copy can be found at the end of this post.) The question posed is simply: “Whether, when the defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Innovation Toys And Analogous Art – Defender Against Hindsight?

There is nothing particularly surprising in the recent Fed. Cir. decision of Innovation Toys v. MGA Entertainment, App. No. 2010-1290 (Fed. Cir. March 21, 2011) (a copy is available at the end of this post), which reversed a District Court finding … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One step ahead and one step backward for the EU patent

The following is a contribution from Camilla Rendal Nielsen of Zacco Denmark A/S 1.   The EU Competiveness Council have authorised “enhanced cooperation” in the area of unitary patent protection, and. 2.   The EU court now states that the proposed Patents Court … Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian Ruling Supports “Antibody Exception”

In my recent post on the Centocor v. Abbott decision, I noted that the Fed. Cir. had at least preserved the “antibody exception,” which I define as permitting broad claims to structurally uncharacterized antibodies (monoclonal and polyclonal) if the structure … Continue reading

Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment