Whither Patent “Evergreening”, the Spangenberg Critique Erich Spangenberg has authored an attack on the current Administration and its Under Secretary in charge of the patent system [FNa]. His focus is ...
Responsive to the previous note (reproduced below) an astute observer points to the limited scope of post-grant review in a controversial Patent Office decision. The observer cites a PTAB decision ...
Although consent agreements are frequently entitled to great weight in its likelihood of confusion analysis, the Board was unmoved by a consent agreement in its affirmance of a Section 2(d) ...
Top Ten No. (1) Sequenom v. Ariosa: From the standpoint of the law of patent-eligibility under 35 USC §101, this is a most important case. The petition is now due ...
Further to the note earlier today (attached below), this morning the Court denied petitions for certiorari in ePlus and Arthrex. TopTenCases2016Feb29 Regards Hal
In Samsung v. Apple, the Supreme Court is scheduled to vote this Friday whether to grant certiorari in a design patent infringement case where the first Question Presented asks: “Where ...
As the April 1st certiorari deadline approaches in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Supreme Court No. 15A871, the underlying facts seemingly compel industry amici support to make sure that the ...
The USPTO refused registration of the mark MUTT for beers, finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark LAZY MUTT for beer. On appeal, applicant argued that ...
Section 101 patent-eligibility for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals stands at a critical junction: At some point in April 2016 amici briefs in support of the petition forcertiorari in the Sequenom case ...
Today in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Dyk, J.), in a case involving claims of infringement by each party against the other and where ...