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
- Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry
- Q & A Session with Professor Benjamin Liu of the John Marshall Law School: On the Impact of Myriad, on Developments in Chinese Patent Law, and on Advice for Young Academics Looking to Enter the Business World
- District Court's Interpretation of Mayo in Ariosa Diagnostics Does Not Bode Well for Patent Eligibility of Diagnostics and Personalized Medicine
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”
- Patent Reform Legislation Stalls in Senate
- The Complexities of the USPTO Proposed Attributable Ownership Rules
- US Patent and Trademark Office To Host Roundtable on “Crowdsourcing” Prior Art Searches
- Federal Circuit Find Fractures in Roche Boniva Patents
- Recent FTC Findings Signal Closer Eye on Social Media Contests
- Method for Assessing Quantum of Damages Determined by Court