In probably the most significant case since In re Bilski, the en banc Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly is about to ponder two questions: (1) is there a separate and distinct “written description” requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?; and (2) if there is, what does it mean? My answer to the first…
Apple is capitalizing on what would appear to some as Microsoft “crying wolf” syndrome and putting into question whether the new operating system can be trusted because its issues have not been effectively resolved by any of the previously released PC Operating Systems thus far. These ads are brilliant!
I am pleased to let everyone know that the ABA Journal has selected the IPWatchdog Blog as one of the top 100 best websites by lawyers, for lawyers. Late yesterday I received the e-mail from the ABA Journal informing me that IPWatchdog.com was included in the 2009 ABA Journal Blawg 100. Now it is time to vote your favorites in…
Last week on Monday, November 23, 2009, while so many of us were winding down, clearing off our desks and getting ready for the Thanksgiving Holiday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced that the Government of India has granted the agency’s patent examiners access to a new digital database containing a compilation of traditional Indian knowledge. This was…
I thought it might be interesting to take a look at a few recently granted patents and see some of the far more important inventions that are worthy of obtaining patent protection. Before I go any further allow me to point out that I am not trying to beat up on the Patent Office here, but rather to illustrate the complete and total reckless stupidity that is gripping the debate relating to whether we should allow software patents and business method patents. The Patent Office issues patents (again, hurray!) and they are not and should not engage in picking what subjectively warrants protection, KSR and the Supreme Court notwithstanding.
It is that time of the year for Americans to give thanks for all the many things we have and enjoy — family, friends, country and of course patents! Here is hoping that everyone has a restful, peaceful and very Happy Thanksgiving! Thanksgiving Embossed Insert for Baking Pan US Design Patent No. D527,217 Issued August 29, 2006
Inventors Digest held a youth innovation essay contest, in part to celebrate National Inventors Month, last August. The four winning essays are at InventorsDigest.com. The magazine received and reviewed some 400 essays from across the country. Inventors Digest, in cooperation with IPWatchdog, is showcasing several essays deserving of honorable mention. This is the second Honorable Mention Essay. The first was…
In this release, the authors (Kaye Scholer LLP’s Patent Group) update and expand Pharmaceutical and Biotech Patent Law with new discussion of many topics, including double patenting, inequitable conduct, product by process claims, attorneys fees under Hatch-Waxman and more. Table of Contents Table of Authorities Below is a synopsis of the significant updates provided for the Fall of 2009.
I am just getting back from a week in San Francisco, California teaching the PLI Patent Bar Review Course at PLI’s California Headquarters in downtown San Francisco. I am back in the office after having taken the red-eye, with a stop over in Long Beach, California before the cross country trek to DC. As has become so common, while I…
In the ACLU v. Myriad case, the ACLU has alleged that the patents involved in the case cover genes found in nature. This statement is so patently (pun intended) false, that the ACLU either purposely deceived the court or is guilty of gross negligence about the facts plead in the case. As Gene points out in his post, Fired up:…
Last week I chatted via phone with Terry Carter, a journalist working on a story for publication in the ABA Journal. We talked about a number of different patent topics, and I am certainly looking forward to reading his article when it appears. Later on in the week Carter informed me that he was having difficulty getting through red tape…
What do high-end jeans have to do with skateboarding? Nothing. Do you think it is a coincidence that Hawk failed at this business? I do not believe it is coincidence, and I really don’t believe in coincidences for the most part. Yes, coincidences do happen, but repeated coincidences cease to be explainable as coincidence and cross the threshold into causative. Time and time again I see people enter businesses they do not know, they have not taken time to learn and the outcome, at least in my experience, is universally uniform — ending in failure. I can say this not only through observation, but also through experience. Perhaps my greatest business failures have come in areas where I didn’t thoroughly know the industry. Tangential knowledge, hard work and dedication can cover up lack of specific knowledge and allow you to convince yourself you can do it, and what happens is you just convince yourself to stay the course longer than you should and lose more than you should. Sticking to what you know doesn’t guarantee success, but it does make it more likely.
Recently I received an e-mail with a link alerting me to something posted on the 271 blog relating to Bilski. The video (viewable on the 271 blog) is taken from a movie about World War II that focuses at least in part on Adolph Hitler. The video posted is from a scene that appears to be taking place in Hitler’s…
Once again I find myself traveling for PLI, this time I am in an airplane heading for Oakland, California, with the final destination of San Francisco, California via taxi. This will be the last live location for the PLI Patent Bar Review Course for 2009. John White and I will be in San Francisco teaching at PLI headquarters downtown starting…
The United States Supreme Court earlier today announced that they will not accept the appeal in the Harjo case, which means that the decision of the the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will stand as the final decision in the long dispute that sought to strip the team of its trademark as a result of the term “Redskin” being offensive and not susceptible of receiving trademark protection.