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 Rader
Gone Judge – Judge Randall Rader To Resign
Before stepping down as Chief Judge of the Fed. Cir. on May 30th, Judge Rader had sent a letter to his colleagues on the court apologizing for sending an email to an attorney who had appeared before the court a … Continue reading
Posted in Miscellaneous, People
Tagged biotechnology law, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, IP law tools, Judge Rader, Patent Law, patents, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Rader Steps Down – Prost Steps Up
Judge Randall Rader will step down as Chief Judge of the Fed. Cir. on May 30th, and Judge Sharon Prost will replace him. Judge Rader will remain active as a “Circuit Court Judge.” As Chief Judge, Rader bought sheer intelligence … Continue reading
Posted in 2013 Patent Review
Tagged Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, Judge Prost, Judge Rader, Patent Law, patents, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Finally, A Reasonable Decision
This is a guest post from Greg Stark, attorney at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. Attached at the end of this post is an annotated copy of the June 21st decision from the Federal Circuit in Ultramercial v. Hulu. The underlying patent … Continue reading
En (many) banc(s) Fed. Cir. decides CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (Part 1)
On May 10th, the Federal Circuit issued a short per curium opinion affirming the district court’s decision that “a majority of the court affirms the [holding below] that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible … Continue reading