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: Warren Woessner
Section 101 at the AIPLA Midwinter Meeting
Although the primary focus of this four day meeting was licensing, there were two simultaneous tracks that contained at least a section of the effect/uncertainty of the recent judicial decisions and PTO Guidelines on licensor/licensee relationships. (I spoke at one … Continue reading
Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Tagged AIPLA, biotechnology, biotechnology law, intellectual property, ip, USPTO, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Myriad Settles – Questions Remain
Yesterday, Myriad announced it has settled the BRCA assay litigations that had been ongoing—and not going well– with Pathway Genomics, Invitae and Gene by Gene (and I assume….Ambry and Labcorp). Although I was just about at the brink of shouting … Continue reading
Teva v. Sandoz: “Just the facts, Ma’am”
Effectively reversing Cybor Corp., which flatly stated that a lower court’s claim construction is a question of law which is to be reviewed de novo by the Fed. Cir., yesterday the Supreme Court held 7-2 that questions of fact resolved … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Interpretation
Tagged Cybor Corp., District Court, Federal Circuit, Patent Law, s. 112(2), Sandoz, Supreme Court, Teva, Warren Woessner
Leave a comment
Promega v. Life Technologies – “Too Much Of Nothing?”
Although much more attention has been focused on the portion of this recent Fed. Cir. decision that held a defendant could “induce itself” into infringement under s. 271(1)(f), by sending one part of a kit to be assembled abroad, the … Continue reading