Search for: "In Re Loring"
Results 301 - 320
of 335
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2007, 1:57 am
Earlier a declaration by Loring was filed by the challangers, and was dutifully and explicitly ignored by the USPTO as procedurally improper. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 10:01 am
If there is a prevalent belief that a patent is only "good" after it has been successfully litigated, we're all going to have big problems. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 9:25 am
But then again they don't talk about the patent applications by Loring on stem cells either.]In 2007, it is much easier to determine if there is an issued patent to a particular inventor on a particular subject. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 7:15 am
" Loring submitted a declaration on behalf of FTCR/PubPat in the re-exam of the Thomson / WARF patents. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 4:01 am
LBE is not sure of the identity of any patent attorney who thinks that the PubPat/FTCR challenge will prevail, in view of the response made by WARF to the re-examination. [read post]
3 Jun 2007, 5:07 am
Loring's op-ed of June 1, 2007 appeared two days AFTER WARF filed its responses in the re-exams of the three WARF patents. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 9:09 pm
" Paragraph 12 of the Stewart declaration flat out contradicts the Loring declaration (which, in any event, was not considered by the USPTO in the re-exam): "methods used to isolate mouse ES cells ... are not universally applicable" Paragraph 16 of the Stewart declaration deals with LIF. [read post]
28 May 2007, 3:54 pm
Prompted by Family Lore on Stack v Dowden, this is a much delayed look at relationship breakdown and joint tenancies. [read post]
20 May 2007, 5:42 am
I enjoyed nipping off during breaks to have a fag with John Bolch of Family Lore - good practice for 1st July. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:06 am
I enjoyed nipping off during breaks to have a fag with John Bolch of Family Lore - good practice for 1st July. [read post]
17 May 2007, 6:00 am
Thanks to my lovely readers, I am now able to provide copies of the last two amicus briefs filed in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
11 May 2007, 10:25 am
Fortunately, we're not bound by the framers' lack of foresight. [read post]
11 May 2007, 10:25 am
Fortunately, we're not bound by the framers' lack of foresight. [read post]
9 May 2007, 8:02 pm
Somers also neglected to mention that Loring had embryonic stem cell patent claims BROADER than those of Thomson in a patent application that did NOT mention the work of Bongso or of Thomson. [read post]
8 May 2007, 6:00 am
Many thanks to the blog readers who sent copies of the following additional amicus briefs in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 2:30 pm
"They're quite clearly the same," says Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in La Jolla, California. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 10:26 pm
The so-called "second window" of post grant review opens up all kinds of interesting problems.See also Loring's 1998 patent application shows interest in non-mouse embryonic stem cells. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 10:55 pm
"with the omission of the fact that Loring had a 1998 patent application with a broader claim to embryonic stem cells than found in any patent of Thomson. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 7:46 am
More to the point of the re-examination of the Thomson patents, Somers neglected to mention that Thomson DID DISCUSS the work of Bongso in Thomson's '780 patent, even though Loring did NOT discuss the work of Bongso in her '765 application. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 10:03 pm
To defeat Thomson's patents, Loring, PubPat, and FTCR bring up prior work, including that of Williams, Hogan, and Bongso (note Bongso was discussed by FTCR and Loring, but was NOT cited by them as art in the re-exam), in a manner very similar to how Glenn Curtiss used Langley against the Wright Brothers. [read post]
