CAFC finds written description adequate in Glaxo v. Banner
Defendants argued"solvate" was not adequately described. They lost.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:09 PM
Monday, February 24, 2014
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- Peanut butter pretzel saga
- "A Fragile Trust," on the Jayson Blair plagiarism ...
- CAFC in Lighting Ballast: Cybor stays
- CAFC in Takeda: patent valid but no infringement
- PatentlyO questions validity under 35 USC 112 of B...
- CAFC analyzes improper application of the doctrine...
- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hands...
- US 8,647,872, titled Human embryonic stem cell lin...
- Intellectual Ventures lays off 5% of workforce
- Genifuel's US 20140045229 re-writes "ethyl" history
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home