USPTO Issues Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility

By Donald Zuhn — Earlier today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its interim guidance regarding the examination of claims for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (which the Office announced yesterday) in the Federal Register (79 Fed. Reg. 74618). The Federal Register notice, entitled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” outlines an examination process that supplements the Office’s “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,” which was issued in June (see “USPTO Issues Preliminary Examination Instructions Regarding Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

Trademarks: You Don’t Own the Word – Just the Right to Avoid Some Market Confusion

by Dennis Crouch On Patently-O, our primary focus is patent law, but sometimes we remember that the “Patent Office” is actually the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO has two primary administrative appellate bodies – the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) deciding patent issues and the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB). In […]
Read the full story here: Patently-O » Patent

GreenShift Loses Across the Board in Ethanol Patent Case

In a number of prior posts (e.g., here, here and here), I discussed the series of patent infringement suits brought by GreenShift and its New York subsidiary, GS Cleantech (GS), against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States. The lawsuits involve GS’s patented ethanol production processes, described and claimed in a host of patents, [...]
Read the full story here: Green Patent Blog®

Celltrion Healthcare Co. v. Kennedy Trust for Rhematology Research (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Hospira Inc. v. Janssen Biotech Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

By Kevin E. Noonan — Earlier this month, Judge Paul Crotty, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York handed down rulings in two separate cases related to the biosimilars law (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCIA) and how the Act’s dispute resolution provisions (also called the “patent dance”) should be interpreted. While consistent with the recent Federal Circuit decision addressing similar issues (see “Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)”), the determinations further explicate the metes and bounds of the law. Both cases were brought as declaratory judgment actions. The Celltrion case…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

News from Abroad: Research Exemptions and Active Ingredient Manufacture

By Ralph Cox* & Kinjal Kondhia** — After a series of papers, reports and consultations on the scope of the research exemptions to patent infringement stretching over 10 years, section 60 of the Patents Act 1977 was finally amended on 1 October 2014 by the introduction of new subsections 6D to 6G. These subsections clarify the pre-existing ‘Bolar’ exemption for clinical trials for generic drugs in subsection 6(5)(i) as well as extending it to regulatory tests for new drugs so as to put the UK on a level playing field for the conduct of trials with countries such as Germany,…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes