Sughrue Mion, PLLC | Intellectual Property Law
    • 事務所紹介
       
      • 事務所概要
      • 当事務所の弁護士
      • 多様性
      オフィス、技術分野、出身校、アルファベット順、またはキーワードにより、弁護士を検索することができます。
      A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
          Learn More About Who We Are
        • 実務紹介
           

          業務分野

          • Copyright
          • PGR (特許付与後レビュー)
          • コンサルティング
          • 商標・ドメイン・著作権
          • 特許プロセキューション
          • 訴訟

          Resource Centers

          • AIA Rules Implementation Timeline
          • 米国発明法(AIA)
          • Recent Developments

          Experience Search

          Learn More About What We Do
        • オフィス
           
          • ワシントンDC
          • シュグルー・マイアン外国法事務弁護士事務所
          • サンディエゴ
          • Silicon Valley
          ワシントンDC
          2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, 20037-3213
          Phone: 202.293.7060
          Alt: 800.888.4220
          Fax: 202.293.7860
          More
          シュグルー・マイアン外国法事務弁護士事務所
          東京都千代田区大手町1-5-1 
          大手町ファーストスクエア ウェストタワー19F
          東京都千代田区, 100-0004
          Phone: 011.81.3.5220.0200
          Fax: 011.81.3.5220.0222
          More
          サンディエゴ
          4250 Executive Square, Suite 900
          La Jolla, 92037
          Phone: 858.795.1180
          Alt: 866.315.4686
          Fax: 858.795.1199
          More
          Silicon Valley
          203 Redwood Shores Parkway
          Suite 250
          Redwood City, CA 94065
          United States of America
          Phone: 650.412.1640
          Fax: 650.625.8110
          More

          Global Reach

          • China
          • Europe
          • India
          • Israel
          • アジア
          • ラテンアメリカ
          • 日本
          • 韓国
          Learn More About Where We Work
        • 採用情報
           
          • 概要
          • サマー・アソシエイト
          • 弁護士
          • 各種セミナー・研修
          • Current Openings
          Learn More About Working Here
        • リソース
           
          • News
          • Publications
          • Events
          • BNA IP Education
          • Judicial Decisions
          • Industry News
          • Links
          • Patent Forms

          Search Resources

          News

          • 6/14/2013 - Analysis In 1st AIA Ruling Should Have Gone Deeper
          • 6/13/2013 - Patent Claims To Products Found In Nature or Such Products Chemically Modified Via Their Isolation Struck Down
          • 5/28/2013 - パートナー 岸本芳也弁護士による「AIA特許防衛戦略」 出版のご案内

          Publications

          • 5/13/2013 - Summary of Motiva, LLC. V. International Trade Commission, 2012-1252
          • 4/22/2013 - Patents and the US Patent Office – Impact on Nanobusiness (speech).
          • 4/16/2013 - Summary of Biogen Idec v. GlaxoSmithKline, 2012-1120

          Events

          • 12/9-10/2013 - 2013 INTA Middle East Conference- Project Team Member
          • 10/26/2013 - AIPLA 2013 Annual Meeting
          • 9/6/2013 - AIPPI Workshop Helsinki Kevin Smith
          Learn More About Our Resources
        •  

          Protecting the
          Universe of Ideas

        •  

          明日のイノベーション

        •  

          Emerging Global Technologies

        •  

          アイデアの宇宙を守る

        •  

          明日のイノベーション

        •  

          エマージング·グローバル·テクノロジーズ

         

        Sughrue Partner Publishes Book on AIA Strategies

        Patent Claims To Products Found In Nature or Such Products Chemically Modified Via Their Isolation Struck Down

        Patent Claims To Products Found In Nature or Such Products Chemically Modified Via Their Isolation Struck Down

        In a sweeping, unanimous decision today the US Supreme Court struck down patent claims to isolated DNAs. The decision also extends to DNAs, or any other material, that are obtained from nature but are also chemically modified (e.g., chemical bonds were broken in order to obtain the material). According to the Court, "Myriad’s principal contribution was uncovering the precise location and genetic sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes within chromosomes 17 and 13", not successfully obtaining the gene itself. And central to the Court's logic was the precedential decision Chakrabarty, which the Court said was "central to this inquiry." According to the Court, the facts in Chakrabarty were very different from the facts at issue in Myriad, because in Chakrabarty the "scientists added four plasmids to a bacte¬rium" where here the chemical modifications to the DNAs claimed by Myriad were insubstantial - "Myriad did not create anything." Making new law, the Court opined that what is now required for patent eligibility is "an act of invention", which is not defined in the opinion. The decision does not discuss how courts should determine if a chemical modification is substantial enough to impart patent eligibility (the modification amounts to more than breaking covalent bonds but not the substitution of a nucleotide in a polynucleotide, which, according to the Court may be sufficient). The decision is available here.

        Sughrue Attorney Sunhee Lee Elected President of KAIPBA ‎

        Versata Development Group v SAP America

        Analysis In 1st AIA Ruling Should Have Gone Deeper
        On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its first written decision in a covered business method review under Section 18 of the 2011 America Invents Act statutes. In this decision, Versata Development Group v. SAP America,[1] the board takes a first tentative step in flexing its adjudicatory muscle conferred by the new statutes. In concluding this CBM review within nine months, and bifurcating Section 101 issues from Section 102 ssues, the board demonstrated its earnestness in providing swift and efficient decisions on patent validity consistent with the objects of the AIA. To read more, click
        here for full article.

        US Supreme Court Agrobiotech Decision Released; The Court Upholds Biotech Patent Rights, For Now

        The US Supreme Court today issued their decision in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., upholding the patent rights of the agrobiotech company Monsanto because, according to Justice Kagan, "By planting and harvesting Monsanto’s patented seeds, Bowman made additional copies of Monsanto’s patented invention, and his conduct thus falls outside the protections of patent exhaustion. Were this otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit." The technologies at issue are critical to the biotechnology industry - replicative technologies, such as plants and seeds - however, more fundamental molecular biologic inventions were also involved. In this case, the question was whether the Roundup Ready™ seeds purchased by a farmer from a grain elevator shielded him from patent infringement under the first sale doctrine. The Court found that the farmer's first purchase of such seed did not prevent him from infringing. The full opinion is available online here.
        • Choose Language
        • English
        • Japanese
        • Korean
          • Extranet
          • Download A Patent
          • Sitemap
          • Contact Us
          • Disclaimer
        • LinkedIn
        © 2012 Sughrue Mion PLLC, All Rights Reserved.