面白そうな記事見落としてました。
（REUTERS)
Article One Partners Uncovers New Prior Art Impacting the Validity of Merck's SINGULAIR...
Merck社のプレスリリース (LINK)
Merck Statement on United States Patent & Trademark Office Decision to Reexamine the SINGULAIR® Patent
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J., May 29, 2009 - Merck & Co., Inc. today provided the following statement regarding the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reexamine the SINGULAIR patent.
Merck社の大ヒット薬特許をUSPTOが再審査することになったというニュースはしばらく前に流れていましたが、その再審査の道を開いた新証拠が賞金稼ぎによってもたらされていたという所を見落としていました。
賞金5万ドル。二人の賞金稼ぎに3.5万ドルと1.5万ドルが支払われた（る？）そうです。
（LINK)
まだまだ賞金首は沢山あります。研究者の方は資金稼ぎにいかが？
（LINK)
2009年6月2日火曜日
冬の時代 アップデート
What Went Wrong (LINK)
In the aftermath of Morgan & Finnegan's dissolution, the search for clues that might help explain the death of the firm points in several different directions. (From the June/July issue of IP Law & Business.)
By Dan Slater
IP Law & Business
June 01, 2009
----------09/02/19------------
Morgan & Finnegan解散していたんですね。しらなかった。。。年間500件以上も特許を扱う法律事務所が潰れるなんて・・・
IP Today 2007年3月号より
Morgan & Finnegan
2006:549件
2005:401
2004:350
弁護士：93人
弁理士：5
Pls Hndle Thx: Get Rich or Die Tryin'
In the aftermath of Morgan & Finnegan's dissolution, the search for clues that might help explain the death of the firm points in several different directions. (From the June/July issue of IP Law & Business.)
By Dan Slater
IP Law & Business
June 01, 2009
----------09/02/19------------
Morgan & Finnegan解散していたんですね。しらなかった。。。年間500件以上も特許を扱う法律事務所が潰れるなんて・・・
IP Today 2007年3月号より
Morgan & Finnegan
2006:549件
2005:401
2004:350
弁護士：93人
弁理士：5
Pls Hndle Thx: Get Rich or Die Tryin'
Bilski 最高裁裁量的上訴を受理
米国最高裁判所がBilski案件に関する裁量的上訴（certiorari）を受理したとのことです。(LINK)
12月初旬にヒヤリングが＜仮＞予定されているとのことです。
(PatentlyO) (271) (Filewrapper) (Law.com) (ABA Journal) (IPWatchdog)
以下は271に記載されていたリンクです。
CNNMoney.com: "US Supreme Court To Hear Case On Patents For Business Methods" (link)
Bloomberg.com: "Business-Method Patents Will Get U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny" (link)
Legal Times Blog: "Supreme Court Will Hear Bilski Patent Case" (link)
Bilski関係記事
Scotus Blogに掲載されているBilski関連ドキュメントへのリンク集です (LINK)
Docket: 08-964
Title: Bilski v. DollIssue:
Whether a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273.
Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association (in support of petitioners)
Brief amici curiae of Accenture and Pitney Bowes Inc (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Franklin Pierce Law Center (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Medistem Inc (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of John P. Sutton (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Borland Software Corporation (in support of petitioners)
12月初旬にヒヤリングが＜仮＞予定されているとのことです。
(PatentlyO) (271) (Filewrapper) (Law.com) (ABA Journal) (IPWatchdog)
以下は271に記載されていたリンクです。
CNNMoney.com: "US Supreme Court To Hear Case On Patents For Business Methods" (link)
Bloomberg.com: "Business-Method Patents Will Get U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny" (link)
Legal Times Blog: "Supreme Court Will Hear Bilski Patent Case" (link)
Bilski関係記事
Scotus Blogに掲載されているBilski関連ドキュメントへのリンク集です (LINK)
Docket: 08-964
Title: Bilski v. DollIssue:
Whether a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273.
Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Petitioner’s reply
Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association (in support of petitioners)
Brief amici curiae of Accenture and Pitney Bowes Inc (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Franklin Pierce Law Center (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Medistem Inc (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of John P. Sutton (in support of petitioners)
Brief amicus curiae of Borland Software Corporation (in support of petitioners)
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
)
投稿
