In 2019, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. for patent infringement in the Northern District of California, with Fenwick representing Meril in the district court case and the recent appellate...more
9/4/2024
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Defense Strategies ,
En Banc Review ,
FDA Approval ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Life Sciences ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Safe Harbors
The Federal Circuit has issued a landmark venue decision setting forth the standard for determining what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Section 1400(b) limits venue in...more
On Friday, January 13, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195). The Supreme Court originally deferred its decision on the parties’ certiorari petitions in order to consider the...more
1/23/2017
/ Amgen ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Certiorari ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS ,
Solicitor General
Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more
10/2/2015
/ Breach of Contract ,
Brulotte ,
IP License ,
Kimble v Marvel Enterprises ,
License Agreements ,
Licensing Rights ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Public Domain ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis
28 U.S.C. § 1782: A Powerful Tool in Global Disputes -
As the number and complexity of cross-border and multi-jurisdictional disputes increase, companies can use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain evidence from U.S.-based...more
10/1/2015
/ 28 U.S.C. § 1782 ,
America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Copyright ,
Cross-Border ,
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Foreign Jurisdictions ,
Global Disputes ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Kimble v Marvel Enterprises ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
POM Wonderful ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Rule 11 ,
Testimony ,
Trade Secrets ,
USPTO
Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” 379 U.S. 29, 32 (1964). On June...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more
On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,1 which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This case addresses a type of patent litigation settlement...more