Prosecution history estoppel can bar a claim of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents where a patentee’s statements lead a competitor to reasonably believe the patentee had surrendered the relevant subject...more
On March 2, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf provided guidance for determining the appropriate measure of damages in Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co. In particular, Judge Wolf described the framework...more
All nine Supreme Court Justices heard argument on Wednesday, April 26, in Sandoz Inc., v. Amgen Inc. The Supreme Court is reviewing interpretations of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) made by the...more
5/1/2017
/ Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sandoz v Amgen
On February 1, 2017, in Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Watson’s proposed generic version of Shire’s LIALDA® did not infringe claims 1 and 3...more
On January 9, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix lacked standing to appeal the final written decision of nonobviousness from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) because Phigenix did not offer sufficient...more
On August 17, 2016, in Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., District of Massachusetts Judge Mark Wolf faced a double patenting fact pattern that had not been adjudicated in a district court case since the...more
On July 5, 2016, a unanimous Federal Circuit panel held that Apotex failed to give Amgen proper notice of commercial marketing required by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA” or “Biologics Act”) and...more