News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property Protection Patents Sanofi

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court Holds Invalid Cholesterol Drug Patent That Covered Millions of Undisclosed Antibodies

In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more

Knobbe Martens

Routine Optimization of Result-Effective Variable Can Bridge Gaps in Prior Art

Knobbe Martens on

PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Early Adoption of the Unified Patent Court

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Supreme Court confirms full scope enablement standard in Amgen v. Sanofi

This month, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the closely watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally defined genus claims. Genus...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

The More You Claim, The More You Must Enable: SCOTUS Delivers Amgen v. Sanofi Opinion

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

In May, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, which addressed the statutory enablement requirement for patents. The decision is consistent with ongoing efforts to strike a...more

Burns & Levinson LLP

Amgen v. Sanofi and Points Beyond

Burns & Levinson LLP on

A week ago Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Amgen v. Sanofi case, affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that the claims of the two patents Amgen asserted against Sanofi...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

Supreme Court Rules Amgen Cannot Monopolize Class of Antibodies Based On Function

Quarles & Brady LLP on

The Court held in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. __ (2023) that the "full scope" of the invention defined by the claims must be enabled by the specification. "The more one claims, the more one must enable." Id., at p 13....more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Affirms Lack of Enablement for Amgen’s Patent Claims

Ballard Spahr LLP on

Summary - In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District of Delaware and Federal Circuit findings that Amgen’s functionally defined patent claims to a class of therapeutic antibodies are invalid as...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

SUPREME COURT RULING: Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al, May 18, 2023

Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al, No. 21-757 (S. Ct. May 18, 2023) The Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision today concerning the enablement requirement found in Section 112 of the Patent Act. Specifically, the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Delivers the Final Blow to Amgen

The questions from the high court during oral argument at the end of March 2023 were fairly telling of the 9-0 ruling that came down yesterday in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757). In fact, it did not come as much of a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amgen Files Its Principal Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi

Facing what is likely to be something of an uphill battle in seeking to have the Federal Circuit's decision against it in Amgen v Sanofi overturned before a not always patent-friendly Supreme Court, Amgen in late December...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

USPTO Adopts Amgen v. Sanofi, Excises “Newly Characterized Antigen” Test from its Written Description Guidance for Antibody Claims

Last month, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its patent examining corps clarifying its guidance concerning the written description requirement for claims drawn to antibodies. In the memorandum, the USPTO adopts the Federal...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Sanofi v. Lupin Atl. Holdings S.A.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Sanofi v. Lupin Atl. Holdings S.A., Civ. No. 15-415-RGA (consol.), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174931 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2017) (Andrews, J.)....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Sanofi v. Watson Labs. Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Sanofi v. Watson Labs. Inc., Nos. 875 F.3d 636, Nos. 2016-2722, 2016-2726, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22438 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2017) (Circuit Judges Prost, Wallach, and Taranto presiding; Opinion by Taranto, J.) (Appeal...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Sanofi v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Sanofi v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, Civ. No. 15-415-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10653 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2017) (Andrews, J.). Drug Product and U.S. Patent: Multaq® (dronedarone tablets); U.S. Patent No....more

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide