News & Analysis as of

Life Sciences Supreme Court of the United States Intellectual Property Protection

Haug Partners LLP

The Sole Meaning of “Solely”: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari on Edward Life Sciences v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and Permits...

Haug Partners LLP on

This month the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and in doing so, seemingly indicated its support for a broad interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023)

The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2023 #3

Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...more

Sunstein LLP

Enablement Enigma: The Supreme Court Weighs In

Sunstein LLP on

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Amgen’s broad genus claims to cholesterol-lowering antibodies are invalid for lack of enablement....more

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC

Amgen is Not the End of Chemical Innovation

Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more

Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC

Enablement Unchanged: Amgen v. Sanofi and the Future of Software Patents

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Axinn IP Update: Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Skinny Label Case, but the Impacts from GSK v. Teva Continue

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, locking in the Federal Circuit’s second panel decision (hereafter “GSK v. Teva”), which held that Teva’s attempted...more

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP

Is Your Life Sciences Patent Enabled? The U.S. Supreme Court Is Considering That Question

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether an Amgen patent is invalid for not meeting the enablement requirements of Section 112(a). It claims antibodies by functional antigen binding and does not disclose the full range...more

Knobbe Martens

Medical Device Patentee Petitions Supreme Court Regarding On-Sale Bar and Price Quotes

Knobbe Martens on

A medical device patentee has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to save his design patent, related to an introducer sheath handle, from invalidity based on application of the “on-sale” bar, which prohibits patenting an invention...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

In Two Life Sciences Cases, the Supreme Court Declines to Address the Constitutionality of IPRs of Pre-AIA Patents

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) challenging patents issued before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). ...more

Knobbe Martens

Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018 (Presentation)

Knobbe Martens on

Knobbe Martens Partners Paul Conover, Irfan Lateef, and Curtis Huffmire presented "Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018" at the MedTech Innovation Summit in San Francisco, CA on November 28, 2018. This session...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

What Are the Top Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Developments for September 2018?

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

This month we highlight the possibility that the Supreme Court will consider the standard for adequacy of written description and a Federal Circuit exposition on the relationship between “blocking patents” and objective...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Top SCOTUS Cases that Matter for Tech, Life Sciences and Games Industries – 2018 Term Preview

Fenwick & West LLP on

As the U.S. Supreme Court kicks off its 2018 term this week, it prepares to take up a series of firsts, including questions about the America Invents Act, securities fraud and privacy-related class action litigation. At the...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Skipping The Patent Dance: U.S. Supreme Court In Amgen V Sandoz Makes It More Difficult For Patent Owners To Delay Marketing Of...

Ladas & Parry LLP on

On June 12, 2017, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered the complex statutory scheme that attempts to expedite resolution of patent...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Potential Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Review the PTAB’s Practice of Issuing Partial Final Written Decisions in...

In a case with potential wide-ranging ramifications for patent validity challenges, on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) decision, SAS Institute v....more

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

Supreme Court Limits Foreign Reach of the U.S. Patent Act

The supply from the United States of a single component of an invention, for assembly of the invention abroad, is not patent infringement under Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act. This is according to a unanimous ruling this...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Three Pressing Challenges for Personalized Medicine

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Personalized medicine can be described as the science of targeted therapies. Advances in diagnostic and molecular medicine have made it possible to more precisely identify alternative treatment options for patients based on...more

19 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