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
Tag Archives: Judge Lourie
Interval Licensing v. AOL — Judge Plager’s Concurring Dissent
The majority of the panel in Interval Licensing v AOL, Appeal no. 2016-2502, -05, -06, -07 (Fed. Cir., July 20, 2018) affirmed the district court’s finding that claims 15-18 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,788,314 are invalid as attempting to claim … Continue reading
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Merck – Mayo/Alice Rule Reaches Medical Treatment Methods.
In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Merck, Civil Action No. 150572-GMS (D. Del., 2016), Bristol-Myers sued Merck for inducing infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,073,994. Claim 1 reads: “A method of treating a metastatic melanoma comprising intravenously administering an effective amount of … Continue reading
Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Tagged Alice, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Judge Lourie, Mayo, Merck, Patent Law, Prometheus, Supreme Court
3 Comments
The “Top Ten” IP Stories of 2014 (Most “Definitely”)
I don’t think I can recall a more action-packed year for intellectual property law in my career, much less during the almost six years that I have been writing this blog. I am trying to write this while in transit, … Continue reading
K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Ware Technologies, LLC – Splitting a KSR Hair
In KSR, the Court seemed to encourage the broader use of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference” to resolve the obviousness question. 587 F.3d … Continue reading
Posted in Obviousness
Tagged Hear-Ware, HIMPP, judge dyk, Judge Lourie, KSR, Patent Law, reexamination, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment