FindLaw | Find a Lawyer. Find Answers.

Library Search

• CLONING PATENTS: A PATENT OFFICE AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ( September 2004 )
  Lana M. Knedlik of

  Given the ongoing debate in the political arena about stem cells research and human cloning, this article investigates the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) past and present practice with respect to patenting such technologies. Interestingly enough, the cloning debate is no stranger to Missouri and Kansas. A couple of years ago, the University of Missouri obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,211,429. The patent was directed to a cloning technique used with "mammals," in which humans were not expressly excluded from the definition of "mammals."

• Reaching The Summit--Prevailing At The Federal Circuit ( February 2005 )
  Mark D. Schuman, Julie R. Daulton, Jeffer  Ali, Rebecca A. Bortolotti and Denise M. Kettelberger of Merchant & Gould P.C

  Intellectual property (IP) is an integral part of any business strategy, impacting market decisions, company differentiation and positioning. IP drives revenue, market share and shareholder value. Protecting and enforcing the company’s intellectual property by prevailing at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is akin to reaching the summit of Everest. The path is notoriously difficult and dangerous, but the prize justifies the risks. A judgment of patent infringement can cause great harm to infringing companies and may result in an award of damages so large that the infringing company cannot survive. Failure can be devastating. The asserted patents can be found not to have been infringed, or worse, invalid or unenforcable. Like climbing Everest, success before the Federal Circuit requires knowledge of the terrain, necessary tools for every stage and a wealth of experience to respond to the unexpected. It is a serious undertaking, with much in the balance.

• Re-Examining Patent Interpretation: Too Little, Too Late? ( January 2005 )
  Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

  Interpreting the scope of patent claims can be like trying to parse a novel jointly written by Stephen Hawking and James Joyce. The unenviable task of legally interpreting the scope of patent claims was taken from juries and given exclusively to judges in 1995 in the Markma. But shifting the responsibility did little to make patent litigation a less toxic odyssey of expense and uncertainty. Now the Federal Circuit, the nation's highest patent court, has before it the Philips v. AWH Corporation case, which addresses the fundamental guidelines for the claim construction task.

• Reaching the Summit - Prevailing at the Federal Circuit ( January 2005 )
  Merchant & Gould P.C

  Intellectual property (IP) is an integral part of any business strategy, impacting market decisions, company differentiation and positioning. IP drives revenue, market share and shareholder value. Protecting and enforcing the company's intellectual property by prevailing at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is akin to reaching the summit of Everest. The path is notoriously difficult and dangerous, but the prize justifies the risks.

• Determining the Scope of an Invention as Written in Patent Claims: FindLaw Interview with Byron W. Cooper of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP ( October 2004 )
  FindLaw M V

  Byron W. Cooper is one of the co-practice group leaders of the Litigation Practice Group at Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP. He counsels clients regarding litigation, licensing, patent prosecution, intellectual property portfolios and has assisted in high-profile patent litigation cases nationwide defending and prosecuting claims of infringement and the validity of patents. Mr. Cooper earned his J.D. from University of California at Los Angeles (1993); M.S. from University of Southern California (1988) and his B.S. from United States Military Academy at West Point (1986).

• Stanford Biotech Strategies Seminar. Seminar Summaries of Speakers Michael Shuster and Lynn Pasahow of Fenwick & West. ( January 2004 )
  FindLaw M V

  Michael Shuster spoke on protecting early stage technology. Lynn Pasahow presented an update on biotech patent litigation with a special focus on selected recent cases.

• Dreams of the Moon and Gold Do Not a Valid Patent Make ( August 2003 )
  William A. Meunier of Testa Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP

  Most people with a even a passing familiarity with patents realize that for a U.S. patent to be valid, it must claim an invention that is new. What many do not know, however, is that a patent must satisfy other requirements that, while less well known, are just as important to the validity of the patent. The District Court for the Western District of New York's recent decision in <i>University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Company</i> illustrates the pitfalls of failing to meet one such requirement—the written-description requirement.

• Watch Out for Statutory Bars - Don't Lose Your Patent Rights Before You Even File the Application ( October 2003 )
  Brian M. Hoffman of Fenwick & West LLP

  Many people are aware of the need to keep patentable inventions secret. However, few people other than patent lawyers understand the reasons for the secrecy or are familiar with all of the actions that can cause an inventor to unintentionally lose the right to obtain a patent. As a result, some inventors unknowingly engage in behaviors that impair their patent rights.