Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office or USPTO) allowed claims to biological discoveries including DNA or protein sequences as long as the claims did not encompass the sequences in their natural setting. In Mayo and Myriad, the U.S. Supreme Court wiped out most of those patents for improperly claiming a “law of nature” and “product of nature,” respectively. Since that time, the Federal Circuit has expanded the holdings and invalidated more patents directed to biological discoveries. If the newly discovered correlations and properties of what is found in nature cannot be patented, what strategies for protection are left for companies doing biological research?
By Peter Kidd
Iancu v. Brunetti
The Supreme Court held the bar against registration of immoral or scandalous marks “collided” with well-established free speech doctrine, namely, that laws disadvantaging speech based on the views expressed thereby violate the First Amendment.
By Charles A. Cartagena-Ortiz
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology , ruling that a trademark licensee can retain its rights under a trademark license agreement that is rejected by the licensor as an executory contract in bankruptcy.
By Dorothy Leray and Jeff Ginsberg
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision Finding Lack of Written Description for Methods of Detection
Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal of IPR Decision for Lack of Standing
By Karen Hoffman Lent and Kenneth Schwartz
The DOJ’s intervention, and the judge’s ultimate decision, has exposed tensions between the DOJ and FTC, and within the FTC itself, and public scrutiny is far from over as the case heads to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.