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: patent strategy
Supplementary 112 Examination Guidelines – What’s In It For Me?
This Post is from Mark Muller, Shareholder at Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. Supplementary examination guidelines for Section 112 were recently published in the Federal Register and sent out for public comment. While the details may not be too exciting, … Continue reading
Divided We Fall – New Rules Limit Divisional Applications in Australia
This is a guest post from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys. Where a divisional application presents claims for examination which have been previously rejected in the parent (or grand-parent) application, then the APO will give the applicant only 2 months to … Continue reading
Poisonous Divisionals — Just When You Thought It Was Safe …
This is a guest post from Malcolm Lawrence of HLBBshaw, European Patent Attorneys in Cambridge, UK. EPC Law & Practise – Poisonous Divisionals 1. Introduction and Background 1.1 We have identified and researched a highly significant anticipation threat to … Continue reading
Posted in EP and UK Practice
Tagged divisionals, EPC, EPC law, HLBBshaw, intellectual property, ip, IP law tools, Malcolm Lawrence, Patent Law, patent strategy, patents, Warren Woessner
1 Comment
Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Microsoft v. i4i.
Today, the Supreme Court granted Microsoft’s petition for cert. in Microsoft v. i4i. Microsoft asked the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether or not a defendant who asserts patent invalidity based on art not considered by the Patent Office … Continue reading