ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: IPBiz

EPO/EBA to review WARF stem cell applications on 24-25 June

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS
John Simpson of FTCR (now ConsumerWatchDog) had written of the U.S. WARF patents on stem cells:

The groups said the patents' dubious validity is underscored by the fact that no other country in the world honors them. As a result, U.S. researchers have sent research monies abroad where they can avoid paying royalties to WARF. California voters approved the nation's largest publicly funded stem cell research program in 2004 with Proposition 71, which allocated $3 billion in grants over the next 10 years. More information about FTCR and PUBPAT's challenges to the WARF stem cell patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,843,780, 6,200,806 and 7,029,913), including copies of the Patent Office's Orders rejecting the patents, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/warfstemcell.htm.

On 24-25 June 2008, there are public oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EBoA) over the WARF patent applications before the EPO.

Of the past, the EPO notes:

On 13 July 2004, an EPO Examining Division refused to grant a patent for the application on the grounds that it was found to be not consistent with the European Patent Convention (EPC), which regulates and harmonises patent practice across Europe. One of the main reasons for the refusal was that the disclosed method of obtaining stem cells used as the starting material a primate (including human) embryo which was destroyed in the process. Somehow, John Simpson neglected to mention this in his attacks on the WARF patents.

The FTCR/PubPat re-examination challenge to the U.S. WARF patents went down in flames. The references they cited were deemed non-enabled, and the declarations were found conclusionary.

See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/sciencetoday-on-warf-victories-over.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/03/warf-smokes-pubpat-ftcr-in-last-two-re.html

Full post as published by IPBiz on June 24, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0135 secs (new cache)