In this issue;

- ClearValue v. Pearl River: Ranges within ranges – when are they patentably distinct?

- Events of January Draw Attention to Piracy and Counterfeiting

- The Public Domain – Is it going to The Birds?

- Falana v. Kent State Univ.: Determining the Inventorship of Chemical Compounds

- Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of Intervening Rights

- Announcements And Reminders

An excerpt from "ClearValue v. Pearl River: Ranges within ranges – when are they patentably distinct?"

The February 17, 2012, decision in ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2012), is the latest effort of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to show how to determine when a narrow range claimed in a patent is anticipated and thereby rendered invalid because of a broader range disclosed in the prior art. The case is equally applicable to patents claiming other kinds of composition and processing ranges for chemical or biological inventions.

Please see full newsletter below for more information.