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.”
- Spark Your Creativity: participate online in Tina Seelig’s MOOC via Stanford’s Venture Lab
- Patentability: “non-obviousness” and “common sense”
- Gerry Elman named in Super Lawyers 2012
- US PTO to Hold Hearings on Effects of Patents on Genetic Testing
- U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Issues A Host of New Proposed Rules to Implement Amended Patent Law
- Supreme Court Nips Patent Exhaustion Doctrine in the Bud
- Supreme Court Decides Bowman v. Monsanto
- Supreme Court Finds for Monsanto in Seed Harvesting Case
- In En Banc Decision, Federal Circuit Finds Software-Related Claims Patent-Ineligible
- Monsanto Ruling Protects Innovators of Self-Replicating Biotechnology
- CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Financial Services Patents Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as Patent Ineligible