For meetings and deliveries:
12 Veterans Square
1st Floor Left
Media, PA 19063 U.S.A.
P.O. Box 209
Swarthmore, PA 19081-0209 U.S.A.
Phone: (610) 892-9942
Twitter: @TechLaw_Elman and @ElmanTechNews
eFax: (925) 226-4995
- The Medicines Company v. Hospira: When Does Outsourcing Drug Manufacture to a Third-Party Contractor Trigger an On-Sale Bar to Patentability?
- Patenting Decisions by South African Biotechnology Entrepreneurs
- Patenting Genes in China, the U.S., and the EU: How Does It Differ? Could It Get Out of Control?
On May 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) put further gloss on the term “common sense” as used by the Supreme Court in the 2007 case of KSR v. Teleflex.
This new case (Mintz v. Dietz & Watson) involved a patent on casings for hot dogs with a woven mesh pattern. The CAFC opinion criticized the district court for finding the patent claim to have been obvious, under the “common sense” rubric. The CAFC explained that “common sense” is a “shorthand label for knowledge so basic that it certainly lies within the skill set of an ordinary artisan.”
- American Bar Ass’n to distribute FBI cyber-threat warnings
- Internet connectivity is the new “electricity”: Underwriters Labs (UL) meet The Third Wave
- Similar drawings, copyright infringement? Art Seidel showed a jury the answer was NO.
- Gerry Elman and Josh Waterston presented cybersecurity seminar at Delaware County Bar Association on Feb. 24, 2016
- Protecting Your Software: Copyright, Trade Secret and Patent Laws in Massachusetts vs. Federal Law and Other Issues
- The Specter of Alice Looms Large Even in PGRs
- Patent Held Invalid for Ambiguity and Obviousness
- Bifurcation of Infringement and Validity Issues in Section 8 Action
- Canadian Patent Appeal Board Upholds Claims to Non-exemplified Humanized Antibodies
- Abstract Ideas: A Common-Sense Distinction Electric Power Group v. Alstom