-
Featured Authors
Archive
- September 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (1)
- February 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (3)
- July 2015 (5)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (1)
- March 2015 (3)
- February 2015 (3)
- December 2014 (5)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (5)
- September 2014 (1)
- August 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (7)
- May 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (2)
- January 2014 (2)
- December 2013 (3)
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (3)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (2)
- May 2013 (3)
- April 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (3)
- September 2012 (3)
- August 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (7)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (5)
- August 2011 (4)
- July 2011 (8)
- June 2011 (16)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (9)
- March 2011 (14)
- February 2011 (9)
- January 2011 (15)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (6)
- October 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (4)
- April 2010 (14)
- March 2010 (4)
- January 2010 (5)
- November 2009 (3)
- October 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (9)
- June 2009 (9)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (9)
- March 2009 (9)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- November 2008 (1)
Category Archives: Patently BIOtech
Seventy Nine House Members Express Concern with H.R. 9
House leaders made the decision earlier this month to remove patent reform legislation from the schedule for the remaining days before the August recess. While a vote is expected to occur sometime in September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy made the decision to review and address many of the concerns that have been voiced by an array of industries that require the value of dependable and enforceable patents. In the words of Representative McCarthy, “I Read More >
CNBC Commentary: Hedge funds, ‘reverse trolls’ crushing biopharma innovation
Patents are the lifeblood of medical innovation. They are the cornerstone that enables companies to perform the long and costly research and development for cures and therapies to combat devastating diseases such as cancer, HIV and Alzheimer’s. Unfortunately, the system that helps protect these innovations is being abused by outside interests. BIO and others have called upon Congress to fix these problems as part of a greater patent reform debate. Today one more voice joined Read More >
Understanding the Wider Implications of HR 9: Patent Reform’s Impact on Agriculture
The House Judiciary Committee recently approved H.R. 9, the Innovation Act, legislation they hoped would reduce frivolous patent-related litigation, frequently filed by so-called “patent trolls.” Unfortunately, rather than surgically targeting abusive lawsuits, H.R. 9 would fundamentally alter the ability of legitimate patent holders to defend their rights. Agricultural innovation, biotechnology and sustainable agriculture will help society meet monumental challenges presented by the expected growth in demand for animal feed, food, fibers, biofuels and pharmaceuticals. However, Read More >
IP Sessions at BIO 2015: The Evolving Landscape of Patentable Subject Matter
The IP Track at BIO 2015 had a number of incredible educational sessions concerning the most relevant topics in the biotech sector. Let’s look back at what top experts in the IP field had to say about the changing nature of patentable subject matter: Panelists included: Jennifer Swan and Howard Levine, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Raul Tamayo, USPTO P. Michael Walker, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Panelists focused on the increasingly restrictive interpretation of patent eligibility, Read More >
Patently BIOtech
Leave a comment
Email This Post
Tags: 2015 BIO International Convention, 35 U.S.C. § 101, Akamai v. Limelight, AMP v. Myriad Genetics, Ariosa, Ariosa v. Sequenom, BIO 2015, Diamond v. Diehr, federal circuit, highlights, Intellectual Property, Interim Eligibility Guidance, IP, Mayo, Mayo v. Prometheus, patent, patent claim, patentable subject matter, Section 101, subject matter eligibility, USPTO, USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Tags: 2015 BIO International Convention, 35 U.S.C. § 101, Akamai v. Limelight, AMP v. Myriad Genetics, Ariosa, Ariosa v. Sequenom, BIO 2015, Diamond v. Diehr, federal circuit, highlights, Intellectual Property, Interim Eligibility Guidance, IP, Mayo, Mayo v. Prometheus, patent, patent claim, patentable subject matter, Section 101, subject matter eligibility, USPTO, USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
This Independence Day, Let’s Thank the Inventors
Happy Birthday AMERICA! That’s right, this Saturday is July 4. And yes, that means what you think it means. Prepare yourself for Facebook posts of your old college roommate in an American flag t-shirt, Instagrams from your sister who makes the world’s GREATEST potato salad and texts from your cousin about prime firework viewing in D.C. (Hint: Avoid the crowds and head to the Marine Corps War Memorial and Netherlands Carillion in Rosslyn – you Read More >
