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
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”
- FTC Rule Targeting Pharma Licenses Is Upheld by Federal Judge
- Successful Plaintiff’s Appeal for More Damages Dismissed; Plaintiff also Forced to pay Double Costs due to Defendant’s Rule 420 Offer to Settle
- Court Dismisses Application for Interlocutory Injunction
- The Supreme Court Bans Aereo’s Service: An Odd Decision With an Odd Rationale
- Supreme Court Sinks Nautilus, Reformulates the “Definiteness” Requirement for Patents
- Amendment Relating to Punitive Damages Allowed