• Blockchain Patenting Strategies in view of the Berkheimer Decision

    The same factual analysis required in Berkheimer under step 2B should apply to fundamental economic practice analysis of claims under step 2A. The questions have similar factual underpinnings in both steps. Applicants, when faced with economic based claims and particularly blockchain-based claims, should argue that whether a claim is directed to a fundamental economic practice is a fact question that has three parts. (1) The claims should be directed to a “fundamental” economic practice; (2)…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Google vs. the Luddites: A Patent Battle Neither Side Should Win

    The idea that all software is obvious is a theoretical argument that doesn’t just border on the scattological, it wades right into the sewer. Consider artificial intelligence. If AI, which requires the use of software algorithms, is supposed to augment human intelligence and provide us with answers to questions we can’t figure out without the use of AI, how is that at all obvious? What about IBM’s Watson cognitive computing platform? … When the highest court in the land incorporates such…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Karolinska Institute recommends retraction of two papers of Macchiarini from The Lancet

    In a post on 25 June 2018 titled Seven Researchers Guilty of Misconduct in Macchiarini Case , the Scientist reported that The Karolinska Institute has found stem cell-related work of Paolo Macchiarini to involve inaccuracies and data fabrication:


    Macchiarini’s research centered on a radical approach to tracheal transplantation that involved seeding bioengineered windpipes with a patient’s own stem cells. His work became the subject of multiple investigations following the deaths of several patients, along with allegations of ethical oversights and data fabrication.

    (…)

    the Institute announced that an analysis of six articles published across four journals had discovered inaccuracies, misleading information, data fabrication, unjustified treatments, and a lack of appropriate ethical approvals

    (…)

    A spokesperson for The Lancet, where two of the papers were published, tells Retraction Watch, “We welcome the report from the Karolinska Institute. We will study their findings and conclusions carefully and respond as soon as possible.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Supreme Court to hear Helsinn v. Teva, decide AIA Secret Sales

    On Monday, June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. in Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The single question presented by Helsinn in the petition accepted by the Supreme Court read: Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.

    The post Supreme Court to…

    Continue Reading ...