| [0] |
Complete Reference List of the FSTP –Project |
| [1] |
S. Schindler: “US Highest Courts’ Patent Precedents in Mayo/Myriad/CLS/Ultramercial/LBC: ‘Inventive Concepts’ Accepted – ‘Abstract Ideas’ Next? Patenting Emerging Tech. Inventions Now without Intricacies” |
| [5] |
S. Schindler: “Mathematically Modeling Substantive Patent Law (SPL) Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up”, Yokohama, JURISIN 2013 |
| [6] |
S. Schindler "FSTP" pat. appl.: “THE FSTP EXPERT SYSTEM”, 2012 |
| [7] |
S. Schindler "DS" pat. appl.: “AN INNOVATION EXPERT SYSTEM, IES, & ITS PTR DATA STRUCTURE, PTR-DS”, 2013 |
| [9] |
.a S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2013 |
| |
.b S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2015 |
| |
.c S. Schindler, “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, 2019 |
| [10] |
SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CAFC in LBC, 2013 |
| [11] |
S. Schindler "inC" pat. appl.: “inC ENABLED SEMI-AUTOMATIC SPL TESTS”, 2013 |
| [14] |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.1], Feb. 2003” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.2], May 2004” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.3], Aug. 2005” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.4], Oct. 2005” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.5], Aug. 2006” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.6], Sept. 2007” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.7], July 2008” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.8], July 2010” |
| |
USPTO/MPEP: “2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reason. Interpr. [Eighth Ed., Rev.9], Aug. 2012” |
| [15] |
S. Schindler: “KR Support for SPL Precedents”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014 |
| [16] |
J. Daily, S. Kieff: "Anything Under the Sun Made by Humans - SPL Doctrine as Endogenous Institutions for Commercial Innovation", Stanford and GWU |
| [18] |
SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in CLS, 07.10.2013 |
| [19] |
SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in WildTangent, 23.09.2013 |
| [20] |
USPTO, “Intellectual Property and the US Economy: INDUSTRIES IN FOCUS”, 2012 |
| [21] |
K. O'Malley: Keynote Address, IPO, 2013 |
| [22] |
S. Schindler: “The View of an Inventor at the Grace Period”, Kiev, 2013 |
| [23] |
S. Schindler: “The IES and its In-C Enabled SPL Tests”, Munich, 2013 |
| [24] |
S. Schindler: “Two Fundamental Theorems of ‘Mathematical Innovation Science’”, Hong Kong, ECM-2013 |
| [25] |
S. Schindler, A. Paschke, S. Ramakrishna: “Formal Legal Reasoning that an Invention Satisfies SPL”, Bologna, JURIX-2013 |
| [26] |
SSBG Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to Bilski, 06.08.2009 |
| [27] |
T. Bench-Capon, F. Coenen: “Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge Based Systems”, AI&Law, 1992 |
| [30] |
K. Ashley, V. Walker: “From Information Retrieval to Argument Retrieval for Legal Cases: ..…”, Bologna, JURIX-2013 |
| [32] |
S. Schindler: “A KR Based Innovation Expert System (IES) for US SPL Precedents”, Phuket, ICIIM-2014 |
| [36] |
S. Schindler: "Boon and Bane of Inventive Concepts and the Refined Claim Construction in the Supreme Court's New Patent Precedents", Berkeley, IPSC, 08.08.2014 |
| [37] |
D.-M. Bey, C. Cotropia: "The Unreasonableness of the BRI Standard", AIPLA, 2009 |
| [38] |
Transcript of the Hearing in TELES vs. CISCO/USPTO as to the '902 and '453 patents, CAFC, 08.01.2014 |
| [39] |
Transcript of the en banc Hearing in CLS vs. ALICE, CAFC, 08.02.2013 |
| [40] |
SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case No. 12-1297, '453 patent |
| [41] |
SSBG's Brief to the CAFC in case No. 12-1513, '902 patent |
| [42] |
SSBG's Amicus Brief to the CAFC in case CLS, 06.12.2012 |
| [43] |
S. Schindler, “LAC” pat. appl.: „Semi-Automatic Generation/Customization of (All) Confirmative Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in a Claimed Invention`s SPL Test, as Enabled by Its “Inventive Concepts”, 2014*) |
| [45] |
SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its CII Question, 28.01.2014 |
| [46] |
S. Schindler: "Autom. Deriv. of Leg. Arg. Chains (LACs) from Arguable Subtests (ASTs) of a Claimed Invention's Test for Satisfying SPL", University of Warsaw, 24.05.2014 |
| [47] |
S. Schindler: "Automatic Generation of All ASTs for a Claimed Invention's SPL Test", subm. for publication |
| [48] |
USPTO/MPEP: "2012 ... Proc. for Subj. Matter Eligibility ... of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature", 2012 |
| [49] |
USPTO/MPEP, Supp. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27; MPEP 2171, Two Separate Requirements for Claims Under 35 U.S.C. 112(2), Rev. 11, 2014 |
| [50] |
NAUTILUS v. BIOSIG, PfC to the Supreme Court, 2013 |
| [51] |
BIOSIG, Respondent to PfC, 2013 |
| [52] |
Public Knowledge et al., Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its indefiniteness questions, 2013 |
| [53] |
Amazon et al., Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its indefiniteness questions, 2013 |
| [54] |
White House, FACT SHEET - "... the President's Call to Strenght. Our Patent System and Foster Innovation", 2014 |
| [56] |
CAFC Decision Phillips v. AWH Corp., 12.07.2005 |
| [58] |
SSBG's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court as to its (In)Definiteness Questions, 03.03.2014 |
| [59] |
S. Schindler, “UI” pat. appl.: “An IES Capable of Semi-Auto. Generating/Invoking All Legal Argument Chains (LACs) in the SPL Test of a Claimed Invention (CI), as Enabled by Its Inventive Concepts (inCs)”, 2014 |
| [60] |
S. Schindler: "Automatic Derivation of All Argument Chains Legally Defending Patenting/Patented Inventions", ISPIM, Montreal, 06.10.2014 |
| [62] |
.a) CAFC decision on reexamination of US Patent No. 7,145,902, 21.02.2014 |
| [63] |
.b) CAFC decision on reexamination of US Patent No. 6,954,453, 04.04.2014 |
| [64] |
B. Wegner, S. Schindler: "A Mathematical Structure Modeling Inventions", Coimbra, CICM-2014 |
| [65] |
SSBG`s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the ‘902 case, 18.04.2014 |
| [68] |
B. Fiacco: Amicus Brief to the CAFC in VERSATA v. SAP & USPTO, 24.03.2014 |
| [69] |
Official Transcript of the oral argument in U.S. Supreme Court, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Case 13-298 - Subject to final Review, March 31, 2014, Alderson Reporting Company |
| [70] |
R. Rader, Keynote Speech: "Patent Law and Litigation Abuse", ED Tex Bench and Bar Conference, 01.11.2013 |
| [71] |
S. Schindler, Keynote Speech: “eKnowledge About Substantive Patent Law (SPL) – Trail Blazer into the Innovation Age”, Barcelona, eKNOW-2014 |
| [72] |
.a) S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court’s “SPL Initiative”: Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Removes 3 Evergreen SPL Obscurities", Press Release, 08.04.2014 |
| |
.b) S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s ‘SPL Initiative’: Scientizing Its SPL Interpretation Removes 3 Evergreen Obscurities - and Enables Automation in a CI`s SPL Tests and Argument Chains", Honolulu, IAM2014S, 18.07.14 |
| [73] |
.a) USTPO/MPEP: "2014 Procedure For Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Law Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products", see [48, 49], 2014 |
| |
.b) MEMORANDUM: "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice v. CLS", 25.06.2014 |
| [74] |
B. Wegner: “The Mathematical Background of Proving an Inventive Concepts Based Claimed Invention Satisfies SPL”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015 |
| [76] |
D. Crouch: “En Banc Federal Circuit Panel Changes the Law of Claim Construction”, 13.07.2005 |
| [77] |
Video of the USPTO Hearing, 09.05.2014 |
| [79] |
S. Schindler: “On the BRI-Schism in the US National Patent System (NPS) - A Challenge for the US Highest Courts”, 22.05.2014, subm. for publ. |
| [80] |
SSBG`s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the '902 case, Draft_V.133_of_[121], 14.07.2014 |
| [81] |
S. Schindler: "To Whom is Interested in the Supreme Court`s Biosig Decision", 04.06.2014 |
| [82] |
R. DeBerardine: “Innovation from the Corporate Perspective”, FCBA, DC, 23.05.2014 |
| [83] |
SSBG`s Petition to the CAFC for Rehearing En Banc in the '453 case, 09.06.2014 |
| [84] |
CAFC`s Order as to denial [83], 14.07.2014 |
| [92] |
SSBG’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the ‘453 case, 06.10.2014 |
| [93] |
E. Morris: “What is Technology”, IU I.N. |
| [94] |
E. Morris: “Alice, Artifice, and Action – and Ultramercial”, IU I.N., 08.07.2014 |
| [96] |
A. Chopra: "Deer in the Headlights. Response of Incumbent Firms to Profit Destroying Innovation" School of Management, Fribourg, 2014 |
| [99] |
A. Hirshfeld, Alexandria, PTO, 22.07.2014 |
| [100] |
C.Chun: “PTO`s Scrutiny on Software Patents Paying Off”, LAW360, N.Y., 22.07.2014 |
| [112] |
E. Bowen, C. Yates: “Justices Should Back Off Patent Eligibility, Michel says”, L360, 25.07.2014 |
| [113] |
S. Schindler: “The CAFC`s Rebellion is Over - The Supreme Court, by Mayo/Biosig/Alice, Provides Clear Guidance as to Patenting Emerging Technology Inventions”, 07.08.2014, sub. for publ. |
| [114] |
S. Elliott: "The USPTO Patent Subj. Matter Eligi. Guidance TRIPS Over Treaty Requirements", 30.07.2014 |
| [115] |
W. Zheng: “Exhausting Patents”, IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014 |
| [116] |
R. Merges: “Independent Invention: A Limited Defense of Absolute Infringement Liability in Patent Law” , IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014 |
| [118] |
H. Surden: “Principles of Problematic Patents”, IPSC, Berkeley, 08.08.2014 |
| [119] |
Tecfidera Artikel aus der Zeit Online |
| [120] |
J. Merkley, M. Warner, M. Begich, M. Heinrich, T. Udal: "Letter to Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce", DC, 06.08.2014 |
| [121] |
SSBG`s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the '902 case, 25.08.2014 |
| [127] |
USSC Decision in KSR v. Teleflex, 30.04.2007 |
| |
USSC Decision in Bilski v. Kappos, 28.06.2010 |
| |
USSC Decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, 20.03.2012 |
| |
USSC Decision in Nautilus v. Biosig, 02.06.2014 |
| |
USSC Decision in Alice v. CLS, 19.06.2014 |
| |
USSC Decision in AMP v. Myriad, 13.06.2013 |
| [129] |
G. Quinn: “Judge Michel says Alice Decision ‘will create total chaos’ ”, IPWatchdog, 06.08.2014 |
| [132] |
B. Wegner, MEMO: “About relations (V.7-final)”, 25.04.2013 |
| [136] |
S. Schindler: “Tutorial on Commonalities Between System Design and SPL Testing“, sub. for publ., 18.10.2014 and eKNOW2015, Lisbon, 22.–27.02.2015
(Paper Title: “High-Level Tutorial I to Claimed Inventions’ post-Alice SPL Testing”)
|
| [138] |
S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Guidance to Robust ET CI Patents", ICLPT, Bangkok, 22.01.2015 |
| [139] |
Supreme Court`s Order as to denial [121], 14.10.2014 |
| [140] |
S. Schindler: "§ 101 Bashing or § 101 Clarification", published 27.10.2014 |
| [141] |
BGH, "Demonstrationsschrank" decision |
| [147] |
Transcript of the CAFC Hearing in Biosig case, 29.10.2014 |
| [150] |
S. Schindler: "Alice-Tests Enable "Quantifying" Their Inventive Concepts and thus Vastly “Increase the Robustness” of ET Patents – A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness", USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015, also ABSTRACT, see also [175] |
| [151] |
S. Schindler: “Biosig, Refined by Alice, Vastly Increases the Robustness of Patents - A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness -“, submitted for publication |
| [152] |
S. Schindler: ”Automatic Derivation/Reproduction of Legal Argument Chains (LACs) Protecting Patents Against SPL Attacks”, Singapore, ISPIM, 09.12.2014 |
| [153] |
S. Schindler: "Practical Impacts of the Mayo/Alice/Biosig-Test - A Tutorial about this Key to Increasing a Patent`s Robustness", 2015 IP Scholars Roundtable, Drake University Law School, 27.03.2015 |
| [154] |
CAFC Decision in Interval, 10.09.2014 |
| [156] |
CAFC Decision in DDR, 05.12.2014 |
| [157] |
USPTO Guideline: "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility", 16.12.2014 |
| [158] |
Supreme Court`s Order as to denial [92], 08.12.2014 |
| [159] |
CAFC Decision in Myriad, 17.12.2014 |
| [160] |
S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions, The PTO`s Implementation by Its Interim Eligibility Guidance (IEG), The CAFC`s DDR&Myriad Recent Decisions - Clarifications&Challenges", publ. 14.01.2015, its short version, and its PP presentation at USPTO, 21.01.2015 |
| [161] |
S. Schindler: "The Innovation Expert System, IES: Philosophy & Functionality, Mathematical Fundament, Prototype", 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015 |
| [162] |
CAFC Decision in CET, 23.12.2014 |
| [163] |
S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court`s Mayo/Myriad/Alice Decisions: Their Overinterpretation vs. Oversimplification of ET CI Interpretations. Scientification of SPL Precedents as to ET CIs in Action. The CAFC`s Myriad&CET Decision.", subm. for publ., 07.01.2015 |
| [164] |
J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg, L. Hunger, S. Schindler: “Introduction to the IES User Interface of the FSTP-Test”, 7. GIPC, Mumbai, 16.01.2015, PPP |
| [165] |
“ALICE AND PATENT DOOMSDAY IN THE NEW YEAR”, IPO, 06.01.2015 |
| [167] |
R. Sachs: "A Survey of Patent Invalidations since Alice", Fenwick & West LLP, LAW360, New York, 13.01.2015 |
| [168] |
S. Schindler: "PTO`s IEG Forum - Some Aftermath", this paper, publ. 10.02.2015 |
| [169] |
Agenda of this Forum on [157], Alexandria, USPTO, 21.01.2015 |
| [170] |
G. Quinn: “Patent eligib. forum discuss. examiners application of Mayo/Myriad/Alice”, IP Watchdog, 21.01.2015 |
| [171] |
S. Schindler: "Semiotic Impacts of the Supreme Court`s Mayo/Biosig/Alice Decisions on Legally analyzing ET CI`s", sub. for publ., 20.04.2015 and IntelliSys, London, 10.-11.11.2015 |
| [172] |
USSC Decision in Teva v. Sandoz, 20.01.2015 |
| [173] |
USSC Decision in Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 27.04.1982 |
| [174] |
USSC Decision in Markman v. Westview, 23.04.1996 |
| [175] |
S. Schindler: "Increasing a Patent`s Robustness by 'Double Quantifying' Its Inventive Concepts as Implied by Mayo/Alice", WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015 |
| [177] |
D. Karshtedt: “The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015 |
| [178] |
O. Liivak: "The Unresolved Ambiguity of Patent Claims", WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015 |
| [179] |
J. Miller: “Reasonable Certain Notice”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015 |
| [180] |
S. Ghosh: “Demarcating Nature After Myriad”, WIPIP, USPTO&GWU, 06.02.2015 |
| [181] |
CAFC Decision In re Cuozzo, 04.02.2015 |
| [183] |
S. Schindler: "The Mayo/Alice SPL Terms/Notions in FSTP-Technology & PTO Initiatives", USPTO, 16.03.2015 |
| [184] |
S. Schindler: “PTOs Efficiency Increase by the FSTP-Test, e.g. EPO and USPTO”, LESI, Brussels, 10.04.2015 |
| [189] |
M. Lee: Luncheon Keynote Speech, PTO/IPO-EF Day, 10.03.2015 |
| [194] |
S. Schindler, B. Wegner, J. Schulze, D. Schoenberg: "post-Mayo/Biosig/Alice: The Precise Meanings of Their New SPL Terms", publ. 08.04.2015 |
| [195] |
R. Stoll: “Federal Circuit Cases to Watch on Software Patentability-Planet Blue”, Patently-O, 06.04.2015 |
| [196] |
See the resp. prominent panel at the IPBCGlobal'2015, San Francisco, 14-16.06.2015 |
| [197] |
S. Schindler: "Mayo/Alice - The Supreme Court`s Requirement Statement as to Semiotics in Substantive Patent Law (“SPL”) & Emerging Technology Claimed Inventions (“ET CI`s”)", USPTO, 06.05.2015 |
| [198] |
S. Schindler: “Patent`s absolute Robustness and the FSTP-Test – Semi-Automated by the Innovation Expert System, IES”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015 |
| [199] |
B. Wegner: "The FSTP Test – Its Mathematical Assessment of an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality", LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015 |
| [200] |
D. Schoenberg: “The FSTP Test A Software System for Assessing an ET CI’s Practical and SPL Quality”, LESI 2015, Brussels, 13.04.2015, and DBKDA 2015, Rome, 27.05.2015 |
| [202] |
S. Schindler: “The Notion of “Inventive Concept”, Fully Scientized SPL, and “Controlled Preemptive” ET CIs”, published by 11.06.2015
(Paper Title: The Mayo/Alice Notion of “Inventive Concept” Enables: Seeing Today’s “Preemptivity Gap”, The Scientification of Substantive Patent Law (“SPL”), and Thus Precisely Defining The Separation Line Between Patent-Eligibility and -Noneligibility of ET CIs)
|
| [204] |
J. Lefstin: “The Three Faces of Prometheus: A Post-Alice Jurisprudence of Abstraction”, N.C.J.L.&TECH, June 2015 |
| [205] |
CAFC Decision in BIOSIG vs NAUTILUS, 27.04.2015 |
| [206] |
USSC Petition for Cert in ULTRAMERCIAL v. WILDTANGENT, 21.05.2015 |
| [208] |
S. Schindler: „The Reach of Substantive Patent Law Protection for ET CIs of Tied Preemptivity“, published by 25.06.2015
(Paper Title: “By Mayo/Biosig/Alice (“MBA”)the Supreme Court Induced the Scientification
●of Substantive Patent Law (SPL) for Emerging Technology Claimed Inventions (ET CIs),
●of the Patent-Eligibility Problem of SPL, and
●of this Problem’s Solution.
Yet: What is the Impact of MBA on USPTO, CAFC – and Next the US Supreme Court (USSC)?”)
|
| [209] |
CAFC Decision in ARIOSA vs. SEQUENOM, 12.06.2015 |
| [210] |
S. Braswell: “All Rise for Chief Justice Robot”, Sean Braswell, 07.06.2015 |
| [212] |
R. Merges: "Uncertainty, and the Standard of Patentability", 1992 |
| [213] |
CAFC Decision in Teva, 18.06.2015 |
| [217] |
S. Schindler: “The US National Patent System (“NPS”): Due to the Mayo/Biosig/Alice (“MBA”) Framework a Rough Diamond – but Rough for Ever? Teva willCut this Diamond and thus Create a Historic Mega-Trend in SPL, Internationally”,this paper`s parent paper, published by 22.07.2015. |
| [220] |
CAFC Decision in LBC, 23.06.2015 |
| [221] |
CAFC Decision in Cuozzo, 08.07.2015 |
| [222] |
CAFC Decision in Versata, 09.07.2015 |
| [223] |
CAFC Decision in Intellectual Ventures, 06.07.2015 |
| [224] |
J. Duffy, J. Dabney, Pet. For Writ of Certiorari, 13.08.2009 |
| [225] |
S. Schindler: "A PS to an Appraisal to the Supreme Court`s Teva Decision: CAFC Teaming-up with USPTO for Barring Teva - and this entire "ET Spirit" Framework?", published by 27.07.2015 |
| [228] |
D. Kettelberger at CASRIP, Seattle,24.07.2015 – Session: „Biotech and Pharma Patents Eligibility: Challenges for Harmonization“ |
| [229] |
Justice Breyer: “Archimedes Metaphor”, see [69] |
| [234] |
J. Dabney: The Return of the Inventive Concept, 06.12.2012 |
| [235] |
.a USPTO: "July 2015 Update on Subj. Matter Eligibility", 30.07.2015 |
| |
.b USPTO: „May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Recent Subj.Matter Eligibility Decisions“, 19.05.2016 |
| [237] |
S. Schindler: "The Supreme Court’s Patent Law Interpretation – Rooted in Kant", subm. for publ. 13.04.2016 |
| [240] |
USSC: PfC by Cuozzo |
| [241] |
S. Schindler: “Draft of an Amicus Brief to the USSC in Cuozzo supporting“, publ. 05.11.2015*) |
| [244] |
S. Schindler: „The IEG’s July 2015 Update & the ‘Patent-Eligibility Granted/Granting, PEG’ Test“, subm. for publication, 18.12.2015 |
| [245] |
M. Lee: USPTO Director's Forum, "Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative: Moving Forward", 06.11.2015 |
| [247] |
S. Graham (LAW.COM): Q&A With AIPLA President Denise DeFranco, 13.11.2015 |
| [248] |
USSC Decision in Parker vs. Flock, 22.06.1978 |
| [249] |
CAFC Denial of En Banc Petition in Ariosa v. Sequenom, 02.12.2015 |
| [250] |
D. Crouch (Patently-O): Federal Circuit Reluctantly Affirms Ariosa v. Sequenom and Denies En Banc Rehearing, 03.12.2015 |
| [251] |
S. Schindler: “Patent-Eligibility and the “Patent-Eligibility Granted/-ing , PEG” Test, resp. the CAFC Objectively Counters the Supreme Court’s MBA Framework, by its DDR vs. Myriad/ Cuozzo Decisions”, publ. 05.01.2016 |
| [252] |
E. Coe: "Michelle Lee Steers USPTO Through Choppy Waters", LAW360, 09.12.2015 |
|
[257]
|
S. Schindler: "A POST SCRIPTUM TO THE Motio DECISION OF THE EASTERN TEXAS DISTRICT COURT", subm. for publication 11.01.2016 |
| [258] |
S. Schindler: "BRIPTO by the USPTO or BRIMBA by the Supreme Court?", subm. for publ. 04.02.2016 |
| [259] |
S. Schindler: "Classical „Limitations“ or MBA Framework’s „Inventive Concepts“?", subm. for publ., 08.02.2016 |
| [260] |
S. Schindler: „Patent-Eligibility: Vague Feelings or an MBA Fact?“, subm. for publ. 12.02.2016 |
| [261] |
S. Schindler, U. Diaz, T. Hofmann, L. Hunger, C. Negrutiu, D. Schoenberg, J. Schulze, J. Wang, B. Wegner, R. Wetzler: “The User Interface Design of an Innovation Expert System (= IES) for Testing an Emerging Technology Claimed Invention (= ETCI) for its Satisfying Substantive Patent Law (= SPL)”, subm.for publ. 07.03.2016 |
| [271] |
S. Schindler: ”THE SUPREME COURT’S ”MBA FRAMEWORK“1.a) IMPLIES ”LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION“ or5.a) THE MBA FRAMEWORK TRANSFORMS
● FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION BY §112(6/f)
● CLAIM INTERPRETATION & CONSTRUCTION
FROM SPECULATIVE METHAPHYSICS INTO RATIONALITY, publ. 12.05.2016 |
| [273] |
S. Schindler: “MEMO about "Mathematical Inventive Intelligence, MII ", subm. for publ. 21.06.2016 |
| [277] |
CAFC Decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, 2015 |
| [279] |
USSC: Transcript Oral Hearing In re Cuozzo on 25.04.2016 |
| [282] |
R. Bahr, USPTO: "Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating....", 04.05.2016 |
| [283] |
S. Schindler: "Prototype Demonstration of the Innovation Expert System", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016. |
| [284] |
B. Wegner: "The FSTP – Its Mathemat. Assessment of an ETCI's Practical and SPL Quality", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016. |
| [285] |
D. Schoenberg: "Presentation of the IES Prototype", LESI 2016, Peking, 16.05.2016. |
| [289] |
CAFC, Decision in TLI, 17.05.2016. |
| [290] |
CAFC, Decision in Enfish, 12.05.2016 |
| [291] |
S. Schindler: "Enfish & TLI: The CAFC in Line with the Supreme Court's MBA Framework", publ.25.05.2016 |
| [292] |
R.Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions ...", 19.05.2016. |
| [293] |
S. Schindler: " MRF, the Master Review Form in USPTO's EPQI, SPL, and the IES ", publ. 30.05.2016 |
| [296] |
S. Schindler: "A Comment on the 2016 IEG Update – Suggesting More Scrutiny ", publ. by 09.06.2016 |
| [300] |
S. Schindler: "Epilog to the Patent-Eligibility Problem (Part I)", publ. on 20.07.2016 |
| [301] |
S. Schindler: "Epilog to the Basic Patent-Eligibility Problem (Part II)", 19.09.2016, this publ. |
| [303] |
CAFC, Judgment in Jericho v. Axiomatics, 14.03.2016 |
| [304] |
CAFC, Decision in Rapid Litigation Management v. Cellzdirect, 05.07.2016 |
| [306] |
CAFC, Decision In re Alappat, 29.07.1994 |
| [307] |
USSC, Decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 03.03.1981 |
| [308] |
USSC, Petition of Certiorari, OIP v. Amazon, 12.11.2015 |
| [309] |
USSC, Petition of Certiorari, Sequenom v. Ariosa, 21.03.2016 |
| [310] |
USSC, Petition of Certiorari, Jericho v. Axiomatics, 10.06.2016 |
| [311] |
CAFC, Decision in Bascom v. AT&T, 27.06.2016 |
| [312] |
R.Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Rulings", 14.07.2016 |
| [313] |
a.) Wikipedia: „First-order logic“ |
| |
b.) Wikipedia: „Prädikatenlogik“ |
| |
c.) Wikipedia: "Analytic Philosophy" |
| |
d.) Wikipedia: "D. Parnas“ |
| [314] |
J.Duffy: "Counterproductive Notice in Literalistic v. Peripheral Claiming", UoV, June 2016 |
| [317] |
R. Stoll: "Innovation Issues in the Americas - USA - Subject Matter Eligibility", CASRIP, Seattle, 22.07.2016 |
| [320] |
S. Schindler “Modeling Semantics for the ‘Innovation Description Language, IDL’ for ETCIs”, publ. 20.03.2017 |
| [322] |
CAFC, Decision in In re CSB-System International, 09.08.2016 |
| [323] |
USSC, Decision in Cuozzo, 20.06.2016 |
| [328] |
CAFC Decision CLS v. Alice, 10.05.2013 |
| [331] |
S.Schindler: "A PS to my Epilog for the PE-Problem (Part I[300] & II[301])", publ. 22.09.2016 |
| [332] |
S. Schindler: " MEMO: The Notion of Claiming in SPL – pre and post the Aufklärung", publ. 10.10.2016 |
| [333] |
CAFC, Decision in Intellectual Ventures v. SYMANTEC, 30.09.2016 |
| [334] |
S. Schindler: "Two Blueprints for Refining the IEG’s Update to Solving the PE Problem or A PS to my Comment on John Duffy's Essay about "Claiming" under 35 USC ", publ. 03.12.2016 |
| [335] |
T. Kuhn: „The Structure of Scientific Revolutions“, UCP, 1962, see also Wikipedia |
| [340] |
S. Schindler: "MEMO: The Two § 101 Flaws in the CAFC's IV Decision, caused by the Phenomenon of 'Paradigm Shift Paralysis' in SPL Precedents about ETCIs", publ. 26.10.2016 |
| [342] |
J. Herndo:"Just When You Thought the CAFC would Softening … the Tide Turns Again", PATENTDOCS, 04.10.2016 |
| [343] |
D. Atkins: "Federal Judges Slam Alice at Event Honoring Judge Whyte",Law360, 20.10.2016 |
| [344] |
CAFC, Decision in AMDOCS v. OPENET TELECOM, 01.11.2016 |
| [345] |
R. Bahr, USPTO: MEMORANDUM as to "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions ...", 02.11.2016 |
| [346] |
S. Schindler: "The AMDOCS Dissent Stirs up the Key Deficiency of the CAFC's pro-PE Alice Decisions, thus showing: The Time is Ripe for Ending the §101 Chaos! ", publ., 11.11.2016 |
| [347] |
S. Schindler: " ROUNDTABLE ON PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ", pub., 14.11.2016 |
| [348] |
B. Wegner: Invited paper, „Innovation, knowledge representation, knowledge management and classical mathematical thinking“, Corfu, Ionian University, pub., 22.11.2016 |
| [349] |
B. Wegner: Invited paper, “Math. Modelling of a Robust Claim Interpretation and Claim Construction for an ETCI, - Adv. Steps of a “Mathematical Theory of Innovation””, Bangkok, ICMA-MU, 17.-19.12.2016 |
| [350] |
S. Schindler: "The IES Qualification Machine: Prototype Demonstration", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017 |
| [351] |
B. Wegner: "FSTP – Math. Assess. of ETCIs’ Quality", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017 |
| [352] |
D. Schoenberg: "The IES Prototype Qualification Machine ", GIPC, New Delhi, 11.-13.01.2017 |
| [353] |
S. Schindler: “The Lesson to be Learned from the US Patent-Eligibility Hype: It Supports the USPTOs Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, EPQI/MRF”, publ. 11.12.2016 |
| [354] |
Schindler: “An Amazing SPL Cognition: Any Patent Application is Draftable Totally Robust, Part A”, published on 31.01.2017 |
| [355] |
S. Schindler: "An Amazing SPL Cognition: Any Patent (Application) may be Drafted Totally Robust, Memo B", published by 07.03.2017 |
| [358] |
N. Solomon: "The Disintegration of the American Patent System - Adverse Consequences of Court Decisions", IP Watchdog, 26./29.01.2017 |
| [359] |
IPO ("Intellectual Property Association"): "Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101", 07.02.2017 |
| [360] |
IA ("Internet Association"): "Letter to President-elect Trump", 14.11.2016 |
| [362] |
USPTO/PTAB: Ex parte Schulhauser, 2016 |
| [363] |
B. Katterheinrich et al: "What Schulhauser Means For Condit. Claim Limitations", LAW360, 03.02.2017 |
| [364] |
S. Schindler: "The PTAB’s Schulhauser Decision is Untenable as Contradicting Alice", publ. 09.03.2017 |
| [365] |
R. Katznelson: “Can the Supreme Court’s erosion of patent rights be reversed?”, IPWatchdog, 02.03.2017 |
| [366] |
CAFC, Decision in TVI v. Elbit, 08.03.2017 |
| [367] |
P. Michel, P. Stone, P. Evans, P. Detkin, D. Matteo, R. Sterne, J. Mar-Spinola, et al.“The Current Patent Landscape in the US and Abroad”, 12th APLI, USPTO, 09.-10.03.2017 |
| [372] |
S. Schindler: "Innovation Description Languages, IDLs & Knowledge Representations, KRs, and Easily Drafting&Testing Patents for Their Total Robustness", 16.05.2017 |
| [374] |
Justice Thomas: Friendly Comment, 04.12.2015 |
| [375] |
J. Koh, P. Tresemer: "Client Alert of 15.05.2017", Latham&Watkins |
| [376] |
AIPLA: "Legislative Proposal and Report On Patent Eligible Subject Matter", 12.05.2017 |
| [377] |
IPO: “Proposed Amendments to Patent Eligible Subject Matter”, 07.02.2017 |
| [379] |
ABA: Letter by D. Suchy to the USPTO, 28.03.2017 |
| [380] |
SIPO: Message by H.-M. Tso, J. Yi, 31.03.2017 |
| [381] |
K. Canady: "Take a Walk on the Bio Side: Patent-Eligibility of Biotechnological Inventions", AIPLA, 17.05.2017 |
| [382] |
S. Alter: "Nuts&Bolts of 101", AIPLA, 17.05.2017 |
| [383] |
B. Stoll: "101 in the Future", AIPLA, 17.05.2017 |
| [384] |
G. Wisdom: "Business Analysis Based on Alice (Conceded to be Totally Abstract)", Microsoft, AIPLA, 17.05.2017 |
| [385] |
EFF: “Comments Regarding … Subject Matter Eligibility”, 18.01.2017.*) |
| [387] |
J. Duffy, C. Banys, T. Sichelman: "The Future of Patent Venue", AIPLA 2017 Spring Conference, 18.05.2017 |
| [388] |
USSC, Decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft, 22.05.2017 |
| [389] |
AIPLA: “Patent Venue Statute is not Modified by General Venue Statute”, 22.05.2017 |
| [390] |
S. Schindler: “The Recent AIPLA Meeting’s New Trend as to Nationwide §101-Guidelines …”, publ., 14.06.2017 |
| [391] |
S. Schindler_ANNEX[391] to[390]-Trivializing and Semi-Automatizing ETCIs’ SPL-Satisf.-Tests, publ. 09.07.2017 (Paper Title: The Use of the FSTP-Test is for all ETCIs Trivial & Semi-Automatic) |
| [394] |
S. Schindler: "Innovation Description Languages & Knowledge Representations", IRRP'17, Orlando, 08.-11.07.2017 |
| [395] |
S. Schindler: “Innovation Desc. Languages & Knowledge Rep.s”, IKE’17, Las Vegas, 17.-20.07.2017 |
| [396] |
S. Schindler: “Innovation Desc. Languages & Knowledge Rep.s”, GCKE-2017, Qingdao, China, 19.-21. 09.2017. |
| [397] |
CAFC, Decision in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 12.06.2015 |
| [398] |
CAFC, Decision on Petition for Hearing en Banc in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 02.12.2015 |
| [399] |
USSC, PfC in ARIOSA v. SEQUENOM, 21.03.2016, DENIED on 27.06.2016 |
| [400] |
S. Schindler: “MEMO: Sequenom ─ An Incomplete Interpretation of §101/Alice by the CAFC, but, Sequenom’s PfC also Misses the Point ─ the USSC Denial hence Consequential”, pub. 17.07.2017 |
| [403] |
P. Jenq, J. Jenq: “Parallel Prediction of Stock Volatility”, WMSCI2017, 09.07.2017 |
| [404] |
J. Duffy: „The USSC and Biosimilar Litigation - Amgen v. Sandoz“, 2017 CASRIP, 10.07.2017 |
| [405] |
P. Morris: “The Latest Developments in CRISPR-Technology”, 2017 CASRIP, 10.07.2017 |
| [406] |
S. Schindler: "THE ETCI's PATENTELIGIBILITY THEOREM, FSTP-TECHNOLOGY, IES, ...: THE MBA-FRAMEWORK AND THE US INNOVATION ECONOMIES' WORLDWIDE LEAD", publ. 01.08.2017 |
| [407] |
USPTO “Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Report on … from the Public”, 25.07.2017 |
| [408] |
C. Coons, T. Cotton, D. Durbin, M. Hirono “Stronger Patents Act 2017”, 21.06.2017 |
| [411] |
D. Kolker: "USPTO Guidelines on Subject Matter Eligibility", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017 |
| [412] |
J. Chambers: "Stakeholders' Perspectives on S.M. Eligibility", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017 |
| [415] |
S. Schindler:"The USPTO’s §101/Biotech Workshop: The USPTO’s PE-Test is too Vague to Help", publ. 16.09.2017 |
| [416] |
G. Nickol: "Update on Cancer Immunotherapy Program", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017 |
| [417] |
D. Nguyen: "WIPO Standard ST.26 (Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence, Disclosures)", BCBCP Partnership Meeting, 02.08.2017 |
| [418] |
USSC PfC: Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 27.04.2017 |
| [419] |
USSC PfC: Openet v. Amdocs, 24.07.2017 |
| [420] |
CAFC-pending: In re Burgos |
| [421] |
CAFC Decision in Visual Memory v. Nvidia Corp., 15.08.2017 |
| [423] |
S. Schindler: „The CAFC/USPTO Biotech/PE-Decisions Reconsidered –– Especially for Biotech/R&D-Investors“, publ. 15.10.2017 |
| [424] |
P. Michel: Comment on the BRI, at recent Congressional hearing |
| [425] |
N. Kelly, USPTO Brief Tinnus v. Telebrands, 29.08.17 |
| [426] |
L. Fischer: „IP & Diagnostic Symposium“, Alexandria, 29.09.2017 |
| [428] |
W. Woessner: " IP & Diagnostic Symposium“, Alexandria, 29.09.2017 |
| [433] |
S. Schindler: An SPL’s ETCI is ‘Digitized’ iff it is Totally-Robust ─ Especially PE. An Aftermath - The Semiotics of ‘Digitized’ and the Oil States Case, publ. 05.11.2017 |
| [436] |
P. Ludwig, AIPPI 2017, Sydney, World C., M. Pharma2 Injunctions innovator vs. innovator, 16.10.2017 |
| [437] |
J.Lefstin, P.Menell, D.Taylor: “Final Rep. of the Berkeley Center for Law & Tech. Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenge”, Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 2018 Forthcoming |
| [438] |
USSC, Brief of Federal Respondent (USPTO) in Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy |
| [440] |
S. Schindler The Supreme Court’s ‘Outer Shell’-Specification of an ETCI – Digitizing & Mathematizing It. & The Semi-Automatic FSTP-Tests by the IES of ETCIs for Satisfying SPL– DDR, Myriad, Sequenom, GTG. & The German SPL-Precedents Implies the Supreme Court’s SPL-Framework – Political Issues., pub. 20.01.2018 |
| [443] |
S.Schindler, C.Negrutiu, D.Schoenberg, J.Schulze, J.Wang, B.Wegner, R.Wetzler"The User Interface Design of the IES for Testing an ETCI’s Satisfying SPL", 23.01.2018 |
| [444] |
S.Schindler, C.Negrutiu, D.Schoenberg, J.Schulze, J.Wang, B.Wegner, R.Wetzler"The IES GUI – A Primer: Using the FSTP-Test, Inhouse Mode", 23.01.2018 |
| [445] |
B. Wegner: „A Mathematical KR Model for Claim Interpretation and Construction“, GIPC 2018, Bangalore, 23.01.2018 |
| [446] |
R. Stoll (on IP Watchdog): „Director Andrei Iancus Act One“, 26.11.2017 |
| [447] |
R. Katznelson: „Private Patent Rights, the Patent Bargain and the Fiction of Administrative “Error Correction” in Inter Partes Reviews“, 04.12.2017 |
| [452] |
CAFC Decision Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, 10.01.2018 |
| [453] |
S. Schindler: “By Artificial Intelligence: German Substantive Patent Law (SPL) is as Fine as US-SPL and the Huge Advantages of US/G-SPL will Greatly Boost Any Patent-Protected Business & Investments (prel.)”, publ. 19.04.2018
Paper Title: "AI-Interpretation of US & German Substantive Patent Law will Boost R&D-Investments." |
| [454] |
CAFC, Decision in EXERGEN, 08.03.2018 |
| [456] |
S. Schindler: “Short Artificial Intelligence Comment on MPEP2018_SECT2106 – NO IMPROVEMENT.”, publ. 28.02.2018 |
| [458] |
S. Schindler: “Comment on the Absurdity of §101 in MPEP-2018_Sect2106.”, publ. 16.03.2018 |
| [459] |
Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s Promises of More Certainty in USPTO’s PE-Decisions – Hope- or Harmful?”, publ. 03.05.2018
|
| [460] |
USSC, Decision in Oil States, 24.04.2018 |
| [461] |
USSC, Decision in SAS INSTITUTE, 24.04.2018 |
| [462] |
CAFC, Decision in Berkheimer vs. HP, 08.02.2018 |
| [463] |
A. Iancu: Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate: “Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”, 18.04.2018 |
| [464] |
M. Borella (PATENT DOCS): “USPTO Updates Patent Eligibility Guidance in View of Berkheimer”, 23.04.2018 |
| [466] |
A. Iancu: “Role of US Patent Policy in Domestic Innovation and Potential Impacts on Investment.”, AmCham, 11.04.2018 |
| [467] |
CAFC, Decision in VANDA, 13.04.2018 |
| [468] |
S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s Further Public Discussion about USPTO’s Services”, publ. 11.05.2018 |
| [469] |
USPTO’s NPRM concerning the BRI, 09.05.2018 |
| [470] |
S. Schindler: „USPTO’s Berkheimer PE-Guideline Talks the US Patent Community onto a Wrong Track and A Question – not asked – as to USPTO’s DataBase-Searching for Patent(- Application)s“, REMAKE publ. 06.07.2018 |
| [472] |
J. Manno, K. Parendo ”Demonstration USPTO ‘Search Tools’, USPTO, 03.05.2018 |
| [474] |
R.Bahr, USPTO, MEMORANDUM (as to Berkheimer), 19.04.2018 |
| [475] |
B. Goodlatte, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee “Goodlatte Statement at USPTO Oversight Hearing”, 22.05.2018 |
| [476] |
A. Iancu “Oversight of the USPTO”, before the Committee on the Judiciary US House of Representatives”, 22.05.2018 |
| [477] |
S. Schindler: “Rationality Returns into the US SPL-Drama – due to its White Knight.”, publ.20.06.2018 |
| [478] |
A. Iancu: “Remarks Delivered at the IPBC Global Conference ”, 11.06.2018 |
| |
A. Iancu: “Remarks delivered at the AEI”, 21.06.2018 |
| [479] |
S. Schindler: “Summary of the FSTP-View at the BRI”, publ. 09.07.2018
Paper Title: "Dropping the BRI-Standard is Necessary! But can the Phillips-Standard Meet the Supreme Court's Framework Requirements?" |
| [480] |
S. Schindler: "The PE-Guidelines Drove the US NPS into PE-Misery - What is its Ideal Fixing Today?", publ.17.07.2018
Paper Title: "A Fresh Look at the USPTO's PE-Guidance - by Andrei Iancu before the AEI" |
| [481] |
J. Wild: „Iancu makes 101 waves, ….”, 12.06.2018 |
| [482] |
S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu ─ After 100+ Days Even Stronger on Track.”, publ. 25.07.2018 |
| [483] |
S. Schindler: “A PE-Guideline for Anybody ─ Framework-based, Precise, Short, and Simple!!”, publ.30.07.2018 |
| [484] |
S. Schindler: "Sliding Interpretations of AIA-§§ Threaten US Development of Emerging Technologies. Pertinent Supreme Court’s Decisions Needed for Stabilizing the US NPS.”, publ. 21.08.2018 |
| [486] |
B. Mathis III: “No Light at the End of the (Alice) Tunnel. Not Even Close”, IP WATCHDOG, 01.08.2018 |
| [487] |
S. Mahanta: “CRISPR Modified CAR T-Cells Bolster Immuno Oncology Arsenal”, IPWatchdog, 27.08.2018 |
| [488] |
S. Schindler: “UC’s vs Broad/MIT’s CRISPR-ETCIs and the Supreme Court’s Frame-work.”, Part I, publ. 20.09.2018 |
| [489] |
S. Schindler: UC’s vs. Broad/MIT/Harvard’s CRISPR Patents & the Supreme Court’s Framework”, Part II, publ. 25.10.2018 |
| [490] |
Nic Fleming: “Computer-calculated Compounds”, NATURE, 31.05.2018 |
| [491] |
USPTO/PTAB: Decision in Broad/MIT vs UC, 15.02.2017 |
| [492] |
CAFC: Briefs of both parties to the CAFC in Broad/MIT vs UC, 25.07./ 25.10.,/ 22.11.2017 |
| [493] |
CAFC: Decision in Broad/MIT/Harvard vs UC, 10.09.2018 |
| [494] |
K. Noonan: “CAFC Approves PTAB as to CRISPR Interference”, PATENTDOCS, 10.09.2018 |
| [495] |
S. Schindler, B. Wittig: ”UC’s vs. Broad’s CRISPR Patent & the Supreme Court’s Framework, AI-Support ……”, Part III, publ. 30.01.2019 |
| [496] |
WIPO: IP Handbook, Chap. 7 & Admin. Instructions – Ann. C, 2nd Ed. 2004, Reprint 2008 |
WIPO : Intellectual Property Handbook - Policy, Law and Use Chapter 7 Technol. & Legal Developments in IP...Biotechnology
PCT Administrative Instructions-Annex C Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences Listing PCT_AI_1
| [497] |
USPTO: MPEP Chapter 2400 Biotechnology, Last Revised Jan. 2018 |
| [498] |
EPO: EPC, Chapter V, 16th edition/June 2016 and DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC, 6. 7.1998 |
EPC_16th_edition_2016_en- Chapter V Biotechnological inventions
Update of 06.07.1998 DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC legal protection of biotech. inventions, 24.11.2016
DIRECTIVE 98-44-EC legal protection of biotech. invention_06.07.1998
| [499] |
US CONGRESS: H.R.5340 - STRONGER Patents Act of 2018 (Bill) |
| [500] |
S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s § 101 Challenge ─ Becoming his § 101 Success Story? The USPTO’s Recent Claim Interpretation May Render Alice’s § 101 Test As Patent Champion.”, 14.11.2018 |
| [501] |
G. Findlay: "Accurate Classification of BRCA1 Variants with Saturation Genome Editing.", Springer Nature Limited, publ. 12.09.2018 |
| [502] |
P. Akcakaya: "In vivo CRISPR editing with no detectable genome ─ wide off-target mutations", Springer Nature Limited, publ. 12.09.2018 |
| [503] |
S. Schindler, B. Wittig: ”UC’s vs. Broad’s CRISPR Patents & the Supreme Court’s Framework, AI-Support ─ About BIOETCIs & MBIOETCIs ”, Part IV, publ. 10.04.2019 |
| [504] |
USPTO: The 2019 §§ 101&112 Guidelines, 07.01.2019 |
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112
| [508] |
S. Schindler, B. Wittig: “The SPL-AI-Relation of ‘Application-Controlled ETCIs, AC-ETCIs’, Part V”, publ. 21.02.2020 |
| [510] |
S. Schindler: “Finally, CAFC & USPTO Started Friendly Approaching the Supreme Court’s SPL-Framework! One Year of Andrei Iancu’s Spirit in the USPTO ─ and All US Legal Patent-Business is of Good-Will.”, publ. 06.03.2019 |
| [511] |
CAFC, Decision in Athena, 06.02.2019 |
| [512] |
G.Quinn: “Why the CAFC is to Blame ..”, IP WATCHDOG, 25.02.2019 |
| [515] |
David O. Taylor: “Patent Eligibility and Investment”, Date Written 24.02.2019 |
| [516] |
D. Reardon, G. Quinn: „Alice is Due for Reversal: Science Proves Its Reasoning Unsound”, 21.03.2019 |
| [517] |
D. Carleton: “Showing ‘Meaningful Limits’ in Patent Claims”, 19.03.2019 |
| [519] |
B. Stoll: “Courts Can Resolve Patent Eligibility Problems, Iancu Says”, ABA-IPL, 12.04.2019 |
| [520] |
S. Schindler:“ Andrei Iancu Will Resolve the PE-Problem as Required by Incentivizing Innovation”, ABA-IPL, publ. 22.04.2019 |
| [522] |
CAFC, Decision in StrikeForce, 19.02.2019 |
| [523] |
USSC: PfC in HP v. Berkheimer, 28.09.2018 |
| [524] |
USSC: PfC in Hikma v. Vanda, 27.12.2018 |
| [525] |
CAFC, Decision in Cleveland v. True Health, 01.04.2019 |
| [526] |
S. Schindler: “The Congress’s New § 101 Initiative Accelerates Consolidating & Improving the PE Notion Vastly Agreed”, publ.16.05.2019 |
| [527] |
T. Tillis, C.Coons, D. Collins, H. Johnson, S. Stivers: “Press Release”, publ. 17.04.2019 |
| [528] |
J. Nurton: “Iancu Calls on CAFC to Fix Sect. 101 Problem”, IP WATCHDOG, 02.05.2019 |
| [529] |
G. Quinn: “Iancu: PTO Guidance Gets 101 Right; Time for Courts to Follow Suit”, IP WDOG, 07.05.2019 |
| [530] |
A. Iancu: “Statement delivered before the US House Subcommittee on Courts, IP, and the Internet Committee on the Judiciary”, DC, 09.05.2019 |
| [531] |
M. Marello: „Urge the Drafters of the New Section 101 to Support Inventor-Friendly Reform”, IP WHATCHDOG, 13.05.2019 |
| [536] |
S. Schindler: “The Congressional Committee’s PE Initiative Confirms the USPTO’s 2019 PE-Guideline (almost) ─ i.e., the Latter’s Vastly Agreed § 101 Meaning Requires a Further Detail for being PE[526] ─ “, publ. 01.06.2019 |
| [537] |
S. Schindler: ”Vagueness & Clustering: Fine in Politics ─ not in SPL.”, publ. 22.06.2019 |
| [538] |
M. Borella: "Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Holds Hearings on Rev. to 35 U.S.C. §101", PATENT DOCS, 17.06.2019 |
| [539] |
J. Berg: "DNA Patents Revisited", Science Journal, 19.06.2019 |
| [540] |
S. Schindler: “Andrei Iancu’s PTO-PE-2019-GuideLine Approaches the Framework ─ Broadly Agreed! The P. R. by Sens. Tillis & Coons ─ about the CAFC’s PE Uncertainties ─ Promises Rapid Relief.”, publ. 15.07.2019 |
| [541] |
Tillis, Coons: “What We Learned at Patent Reform Hearings”, publ. 24.06.2019 |
| [542] |
A. Iancu: “The Current State of Innovativity within the Legal System ─ Views on Evolving Protection for IPRs in the US from the USPTO and the Courts.”, NYIPLA, publ. 21.06.2019 |
| [543] |
B. Stoll: “Update on 35 USC § 101 & Recent Legislation”, publ. June 2019 |
| [544] |
Sens. Tillis, Coons: “Statement on key Federal Circuit decision, continued uncertainty about patent eligibility”, Press Release, 08.07.2019 |
| [545] |
S. Schindler, D. Schoenberg, J. Schulze, R. Wetzler: „Claim Interpretation & Claim Construction for ETCIs: From Metaphysics&Metarationality to Mathematics. Patents on ETCIs Enabling Both are in Courts Enforceable!, publ. 27.07.2019 |
| [546] |
CAFC: Athena vs. Mayo, 03.07.2019 |
| [547] |
E. Malak: “Beyond 101: An Inventor’s Plea for Comprehensive Reform of the U.S. Patent System.”, IP WATCHDOG, 08.07.2019 |
R. Davis: „Iancu Says USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance Bringing Clarity”, Law360, 24.07.2019
| [550] |
S. Schindler: “A Comment on Two Heavyweight Letters to the Congressional Subcommittee on IP”, publ. 05.08.2019 |
| [551] |
S. Schindler: “The ‘Director’s-Forum-on-AI-in-Patenting’ is a Brilliant Idea ─ as to the Point.”, publ. on 01.09.2019 |
| [552] |
S. Schindler: “CAFC’s Anew Legal Errors in Its ETCIs’ PE-Decisions Need Supreme Court Clarification.”, publ. 15.10.2019 |
| [553] |
L. Peter: “USPTO announces FRN on artificial intelligence patent issues”, 26.08.2019 |
| [554] |
G. Quinn: “A Strange Evolution: The Federal Circuit Has Entered the Theater of the Absurd”, IPWATCHDOG, 26.09.2019 |
| [555] |
CAFC, Decision in Chamberlain vs. TTI, 21.08.2019 |
| [556] |
USSC: PfC in StrikeForce |
| [557] |
UC Berkeley: “PR Largest CRISPR Portfolio”, 08.10.2019 |
| [559] |
CAFC, Decision in AAM vs. Neapco, 03.10.2019 |
| [560] |
A. Iancu: “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Inventions”, 21.08.2019 |
| [561] |
W. Xie: “Examining Confusion Between the Chamberlain & Berkheimer CAFC Decisions”, 09.09.2019, IPWATCHDOG |
| [562] |
S.Schindler: “CAFC’s & USPTO’s ETCI-Patenting Fails Rationalizing Part of Supreme Court’s PE Requirement.”, publ. 24.10.2019 |
| [565] |
FCBA Conference “Innovation and IP Leadership, …..”, Honolulu, 15.10.2019 |
| [566] |
USPTO: The 2019 § 101 October PE Guideline[504], 18.10.2019 |
| [567] |
D. Crouch: “PTO Guidance: Bridging the Swamp”, 18.10.2019 |
| [568] |
M. Borella: “USPTO Publishes Update to Its Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 17.10.2019 |
| [569] |
WIPO: “World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019” |
| [570] |
S. Schindler: “The US SPL and Its ETCIs are Deterministic Mathematics ─ i.e. Applied Mathematics.”, publ.31.10.2019 |
| [571] |
S. Pierce: “PE of Diagnostic Tools: Utility as the Key to Unlocking Section 101”, 27.10.2019, IP WATCHDOG |
| [572] |
S. Schindler: “No 101-Panel as Any Other”, publ. 04.11.2019 |
| [573] |
S. Schindler: “An Unnoticed AI Requ. Met by the Supreme Court’s PE Philosophy ...”, publ. 09.12.2019 Paper Title: „A Hitherto Unnoticed AI Requirement Met by the Supreme Court’s PE Philosophy ─ Implying: By the Supreme Court’s Framework a Preemptive ETCI is nPE. Not yet so by the USPTO’s 2019 PEG Update.“ |
| [574] |
CAFC Decision in KPN v. Gemalto, 15.11.2019 |
| [576] |
S. Schindler: “The ‘AISPL-test mod(SPL) ≌ FSTP-Test’ is the Strong PE-Test ⩝ ETCIs …”, pub. 03.01.2020 |
| [577] |
S. Schindler: “The USPTO’s PE-Guidance is still Mute about ‘Wild Preemptivity’ ─ …”, pub. 19.12.2019 |
| [578] |
DoJ: AB in SC as to Berkheimer, pub. 06.12.2019 |
| [579] |
DoJ: AB in SC as to HIKMA, pub. 06.12.2019 |
| [580] |
HP PfC in SC as to Berkheimer, pub. 28.09.2018 |
| [581] |
Athena: PfC in SC as to Mayo, pub. 01.10.2019 |
| [582] |
Athena: PfC/Resp. in SC as to Mayo, pub. 9.12.2019 |
| [583] |
HIKMA PfC in SC as to VANDA, pub. 27.12.2018 |
| [584] |
B.Grant: “… life science has moved us closer to a complete understanding of what makes us human …”, The Scientist, 20.12.2019 |
| [585] |
D. Kwon: “Hundreds of CRISPR patents have been granted … and the number of applications continues to grow at a rapid pace.”, The Scientist, 15.07.2019 |
| [586] |
S. Schindler: “AI-testing an ETCI Warrants Much Better Information than its PE-Test …”, pub. 09.01.2020 |
| [587] |
AIPLA: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [588] |
AIPPI: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [589] |
AUTM: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [590] |
CCIA: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [591] |
EFF: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [592] |
IEEE: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [593] |
IPO: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [594] |
R STREET: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [595] |
T. Rue: Reply to USPTO’s AI-Enquiry |
| [596] |
S. Schindler: “AI Facilitates Testing ⩝ ETCI for PE & PA ─ Automat. or by AI-Theorem”, pub. 10.03.2020 |
| [597] |
WIPO Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence, 13.12.2019 |
| [598] |
Max Planck Institute: “On the Draft Issues Paper of the WIPO on IP Policy and AI”, 11.02.2020 |
| [599] |
CAFC: Oracle vs Google, 27.3.2018 |
| [600] |
Google`s Cert. Petition to the USSC in Google v Oracle, 24.6.2019, granted on 15.11.2019 |
| [601] |
Amicus Brief to the USSC in Google v Oracle, 27.9.2019 |
| [603] |
S. Schindler: “Patenting / Copyrighting / Trademarking APIs ─ in Mathe. AI View”, publ. 26.03.2020 |
| [604] |
S. Schindler_The Hard Need to Scientize COVID-19 Patents, e.g. the Gilead (Remdesivir) Patent_publ. 30.04.2020 |
| [605] |
Clarke et al.: “Methods for Treating …& Coronaviridae Virus Infections”, Pat.# US 10,251,904 B2 |
| [606] |
R.Harasimowicz: “The Global Patent Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine’, The Nat. Law Review, 24.03.20 |
| [607] |
J. Wang: ‘Race against the Virus: COVID-19 Clinical Trials of Pharm. Pats. In Taiwan’, IAM, 25.03.20 |
| [608] |
A. Rutschmann: ‘Coronavirus Vaccine Development: Systemic Failures in Vaccine Innovation’, 21.03.20 |
| [609] |
M. Alves (O. Calvo Ärzte ohne Grenzen): ‘Open Letter to Gilead …..Access to Remdesivir”, 30.03.2020 |
| [612] |
IBM’s & Microsoft’s statements about opening their patent databases within then COVID-19pledge. |
Microsoft Blog_Microsoft commits patents to help fight COVID-19
| [613] |
REMDESIVIR: US WIKIPEDIA |
| [614] |
(Talk:)COVID-19 vaccine: US WIKIPEDIA |
| [615] |
CAFC: Decision in Illumina & Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics”, 17.03.20 |
| [616] |
D. Crouch: “Sequenom Back Again: This time Patent Eligible”, Patently-O, 17.03.2020 |
| [617] |
E. McDermott: “USPTO Chief Economist Analyses Effects of §101/PEG”, IPWatchdog, 23.04.2020 |
| [618] |
P. Michel, J. Battaglia: “Flaws in the Supreme Court’s §101 Precedent and Available Ways to Correct Them”, 27.04.2020 |
| [619] |
S. Schindler: “The Meaning is of Any ETCI’s ‘Appl.’, its ‘Inventive Con.’, and their Scientif.”, publ. 12.05.2020 |
| [620] |
R. Eastman et al.: “Remdevisir: A Review of Its Discovery & Development ….”, ACS, 05.05.2020 |
| [621] |
S. Schindler: “Patent Business – Before Shake-up”, publ. 14.04.2021 |
| [622] |
S. Schindler: „The CAFC’s ETCI Precedents is of MetaPhysical SPL – Yet the USSC Requires ETCI Precedents to be of Rational SPL. As Needed by Vaccine Variants for COVID-19ETCI Mutants!“, publ. 02.03.2021 |
| [623] |
W. Xie: „Examining_Confusion Between the Chamberlain and Berkheimer Decisions at the CAFC“, IPWATCHDOG, 09.09.2019 |
| [624] |
K. Noonan: „Federal Circuit Hands Down Modified Opinion in Illumina. v. Ariosa“, PATENT DOCS, 03.08.2020 |
| [625] |
R.Tapscott: „Illumina v. Ariosa-En Banc Rehearing Denied Patents Again Upheld on Rehearing“, IPWATCHDOG, 04.08.2020 |
| [627] |
S. Schindler: „‘Sequenced Patent Examination’ can’t Fix the USPTO’s (& CAFC’s) § 101 Errors“, publ. 19.04.2021 |
| [628] |
„S.Schindler: “– §101 / Patent-Eligibility (PE) –Only for CIs (‘(nonrefined)Claimed Inventions’) or also for ETCIs (‘(refined)EmergingTechnology CIs’)? Targeting SARS CoV-2’s vaccines”, publ. 17.102022*)” |
| [629] |
D. Shores: “The mRNA IP and Competitive Landscape …”, IP WATCHDOG, 11.04.2021 |
| [631] |
S. Schindler: “An Easy Question About § 101”, publ. 30.05.2021 |
| [632] |
B. Sorge: „Einstein, Anschütz und der Kieler Kreiselkompass“, LBG Nr.2/2007 |
| [633] |
K. Kariko & U. Sahin: ”Meth. for Reducing. Immunogenicity of RNA”, BIONTECH, US Pat Appl.. 2020/..629 A1 |
| [635] |
U .Sahin: “COVID.-19 vacc. BNT162b1 elicits human antibody & TH1 T cell resp.”, NATURE; 22.10.2020 |
| [636] |
T. Schlake & A. Thess: “Modif. RNA with Decr. Immunostim. Props’, CUREVAC, US Pat. Appl. 2021/…124 A1 |
| [637] |
G. Claramella et al.:”Nucleic Acid Vaccines”, MODERNA TX, US Pat. Appl. 2021/…467 A1 |
| [638] |
J. Langedijk: “Comp. & Meth. for Preventing & Treating SARS-COV-2.”, JANSSEN (J&J), US Pat. Appl., 2021/…170 |
| [639] |
K. Beguir, U .Sahin et al “Early Comp. Detec. of Potent. High Risk SARS-CoV-2 Variants”, InstaDeep, 27.12.2021 |
| [640] |
Sen.Tillis, Coons, Hirono, Cotton: Patent Eligibility Study Letter, 03.05.2021 |
| [641] |
IP Watchdog_In Written Responses to Senators Questions Vidal Supports Iancus 101 Guidance 'In Principle' |
| [642] |
W. Garcia-Beltran et al: “mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing …”, 03.02.2022, Cell, Elsevier |
| [643] |
E. Dolgin_Pan-coronavirus vaccine pipeline takes form_19.04.2022_natureNEWS |
| [644] |
L. Murr: “Sequencing Patent Testing”, IP WATCHDOG, 23.03.2021 |