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 Recent EC–Draft Concerning the Nagoya Protocol: Challenges for the Industry with a Special Regard to the Pharmaceutical Sector
- Why the ACLU Should Have Kept Its Nose Out of Patent Law and How Practitioners Can Pick Up the Pieces
- A Natural Disagreement: Markedly Different Views on the Patentability of Human Genes, as Presented in the Case History and Recent Supreme Court Decision in Myriad Genetics
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.”
- Supreme Court, snowed by ACLU smear campaign, resurrects archaic requirement of “invention” as a test of patent eligibility.
- State of Vermont Declares War on “Patent Trolls”
- Are Human Genes Patentable?—The Experts Weigh In
- Spark Your Creativity: participate online in Tina Seelig’s MOOC via Stanford’s Venture Lab
- Patentability: “non-obviousness” and “common sense”
- ALJ Pender Grants Summary Determination Of Violation And Recommends General Exclusion Order In Certain Cases For Portable Electronic Devices (337-TA-861/867)
- Are Computer-Implemented Inventions Patent Eligible?
- The Supreme Court on Patent Law
- ALJ Gildea Grants Summary Determination Of Indefiniteness In Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884)
- The Second Opinion: When is a Little Knowledge a Dangerous Thing? When it is used to Disqualify In-House Counsel
- No Matter Who Brings the Case, Patentee Bears Burden of Proving Infringement