Tag Archives: patent attorney

ABBOTT LABS. v. SANDOZ, INC. – ONE RULE FITS ALL?

Posted on June 5, 2009 by Warren Woessner

Or “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”? Posts and pens have been busy reporting that the Federal Circuit, en banc, overruled Scripps v. Genentech, and ended the debate over whether a product-by-process claims should be construed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, Federal Circuit, intellectual property, patent attorney, Scripps v. Genetech, USPTO, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

GETTING TO ALLOWANCE – SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLIENTS

Posted on May 29, 2009 by Warren Woessner

1. Tell Your Patent Attorney What You Want Your Patent To Do. IP attorneys are continuously told that we should be business partners with our clients, not just patent scribes. But there are lots of ways to protect an invention. … Continue reading →

Posted in USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged intellectual property, IP law tools, patent attorney, patent claims, patent strategy, patents, USPTO, USPTO examiner, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

BOOK REVIEW: Janice M Mueller, Patent Law, Third Edition, Aspen Publishers (2009), 613 pages, paper.

Posted on May 11, 2009 by Warren Woessner

I thought I would take time out from my rants about the written description requirement, and patentable subject matter, to let you know about this important addition to IP education tools. In 2003, Professor Mueller, now at the University of … Continue reading →

Posted in Conferences and Classes | Tagged Bilski, intellectual property, Introduction to Patent Law, IP law tools, Janice Mueller, patent attorney, University of Pittsburgh, Warren Woessner | 2 Comments

Ariad: “The Future Ain’t What It Used To Be!” Judge Linn’s Concurrence and the Abuse and Neglect of the Enablement Requirement at the Federal Circuit

Posted on May 5, 2009 by Warren Woessner

In my post of April 13, 2009, I concluded with a brief summary of Judge Linn’s cogent concurrence, and noted that I would revisit it. Judge Linn does not believe that it was ever necessary for the court to graft … Continue reading →