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: Therasense
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation – Making “Therasense” out of Confusion
Recently, a divided three judge panel sorting out a multi-party Hatch-Waxman suit, ruled that the patentee, Shinonogi, had not committed inequitable conduct in obtaining the patent that was subsequently reissued so as to obtain narrow claims focused on Rosuvastatin, or … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56, Reissue
Tagged AstraZenca, biotechnology, biotechnology law, biotechnology news, Crestor, Federal Circuit, Hatch-Waxman, inequitable conduct, intellectual property, ip, Patent Law, patents, reissue, Rosuvastatin, Shinonogi, Therasense, Warren Woessner
1 Comment
1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc. – Specific Intent Means Specific Intent
On September 13th, the Fed. Cir. reversed a district court ruling that the inventor and the attorney who prosecuted a chain of applications claimed multi-media entertainment systems had committed inequitable conduct by failing to disclose three “relevant” references at various … Continue reading
Aventis v. Hospira – How to Meet the Therasense Standards
On April 9, 2012, The Fed. Cir. affirmed a holding by the district court that rendered two (then) Sanofi add-on patents on infusion vehicles for docetaxel unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The inventors, particularly inventor/project manager Fabre, were found to have … Continue reading
Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56
Tagged Aventis v. Hospira, Fabre, Federal Circuit, Patent Law, Therasense, Warren Woessner
2 Comments
Supplemental Examination Decision Tree – Lots of Dead Branches?
Well, I wish it were that simple, but I keep trying to conjure examples that would lead me to use supplemental examination to “purge inequitable conduct (IC)” that I discover after my patent issues, and which could provide the basis … Continue reading