Sponsored by:
-
Recent Posts
- Blog Pause from 9/26 – Present
- Some claims invalid as a JMOL, some invalid by jury decision. Parsing appellate procedure.
- How to greet your previous attorney in a new infringement case (say “hello” or move for disqualification?)
- Progeny plants infringe, but not their parent’s seed
- BPAI incorrectly defines fluff
Blogroll
Quick Links
Recent Comments
- Izof_texas on Infringement, Indefiniteness, and Tobacco Curing Invention
- Izof_texas on Infringement, Indefiniteness, and Tobacco Curing Invention
- incredulous on The Board as a “Super-Examiner:” Prima facie case met where applicant is on notice as to substance of the rejection
- Can a non-exclusive patent licensee sue? « IPmetrics – Blog on WiAV does not wave standing because it holds a non-exclusive license
- C. Allen Black, Jr. on Digital halftoning software and §101 (Warning—this opinion contains math)
Archives
Tag Archives: Written Description
Spine Implant Patent Case
See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1538.pdf Issue(s): Was the lower court correct in granting summary judgment that Medtronic infringes the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,071 (the ’071 patent). Further, was the court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims are not … Continue reading
“I didn’t mention the remaining part of the protein sequence but, heck, PHOSITA could find it”
See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1156-1157.pdf Issue: Was the Board of Appeals correct in granting priority as to the counts of both interferences to Sugano based on the filing date of its initial Japanese application? The question of priority turns on whether Sugano’s initial … Continue reading
Posted in Case Briefs
Tagged Precedential, Reduction to Practice, Written Description
Leave a comment
Bone Loss Patent Case
See http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1005-1033.pdf Issue(s): Was the district court’s permanent injunction preventing any manufacture or distribution of a generic version of the drug Evista® by Teva, until the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,906,086; RE39,049; RE38,968 (collectively the “Bone Loss Patents”); and … Continue reading