Search for: "IN RE POD-NERS"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2009, 5:35 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: US: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act : House Energy & Commerce Committee OKs 12-year data exclusivity for biotech drugs (Patent Baristas) (Patent Docs) (FDA Law Blog) (PatentlyBIOtech) (GenericsWeb) General Pharmaceutical patent settlements under fire on both sides of the Atlantic (GenericsWeb) Biotechnology… [read post]
1 Aug 2009, 11:01 am
In re Pod-Ners LLC (08-1492). [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 6:05 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: India: Tarceva patent to be reviewed by Indian Supreme Court: Roche v Cipla (Spicy IP) (GenericsWeb) US follow-on biologics data exclusivity debate (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (IP Watchdog) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Patently BIOtech) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) General Shift in IP top posts at WHO (Intellectual Property… [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 5:15 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: European Commission Competition DG releases final report on pharmaceutical sector (IPKat) (PatLit) (BLOG@IP::JUR) (IAM) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Intellectual Property Watch) (The SPC Blog) (IAM) US: Follow-on biologics proposals considered by US Senate HELP Committee; Committee passes amendment for 12-year biologics exclusivity period (FDA Law… [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 4:17 am
IN RE POD-NERS, L.L.C., an appeal of a re-exam result to the CAFC, is another case in which obviousness and KSR are mentioned.The reasoning for obviousness was not so clear at the lower level, but the CAFC wrote:In ruling that the claims would have been obvious, the Board did not explain its conclusion in detail. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 12:28 pm
In Re Pod-ners (CAFC 2008-1492) non-precedential The facts are undisputed. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 10:06 am
In re POD-NERS (Fed. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 7:22 am
" To reject the Board's obviousness ruling here, would be to deny the Board that very "recourse to common sense" that the Supreme Court there warned against.In re POD-NERS, L.L.C., 2008-1492 (Re-examination No. 90/005,892) [read post]
