Search for: "Lourie v. Lourie" Results 221 - 240 of 609
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Sep 2014, 9:23 am by Dennis Crouch
Instead, it adopted the reasoning of Judges Lourie and Moore in the Federal Circuit below, finding that isolated genes are not naturally-occurring substances but are “the products of man”. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 9:41 pm by Mark Summerfield
D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2014] FCAFC 115 (5 September 2014)A special expanded bench of five judges of the Federal Court of Australia has thumbed its collective nose at the US Supreme Court, finding that isolated genetic material is patent-eligible in Australia, and that (‘with respect’, of course) the emphasis of the US’ top court (in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S. ___) ‘on the similarity of “the location… [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 9:22 am by Jason Rantanen
Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) Octane Fitness RemandPanel: Newman, Mayer, and Lourie In Octane Fitness v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 2:17 pm by Jason Rantanen
  Judges Wallach, Linn, Clevenger, and Moore “go broad” in over 66% of close cases (Judge Rader was also in this group); Judges Bryson, Prost, Mayer, Schall, and Dyk “go broad” in between 47% and 55% of close cases; and Judges Newman and Lourie “go broad” in under 31 percent of close cases. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 7:24 pm
Category: Claim Construction     By: John Kirkpatrick, Contributor   TitleHowlink Global LLC v. [read post]