New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
Intellectual Property In Department of Defense Contracting
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
On January 9, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2022-01225 and IPR2022-01226, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents directed to dosing of aflibercept — U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,681 and 10,888,601. The PTAB...more
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
On August 18, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”), filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2023-01312, challenging the validity of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,464,992, assigned to Regeneron...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more
We previously reported on the opening post-trial briefs in Regeneron’s BPCIA case against Mylan and Biocon (who was added as a defendant after the original defendant, Mylan, transferred its rights to the aflibercept...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference relating to automotive engine parts was not analogous art to the challenged...more
On March 10, 2023, the PTAB denied institution of IPR2022-1524, filed by Apotex Inc. regarding Regeneron’s Patent No. 11,253,572. As we previously reported, Apotex filed an IPR petition against the ’572 patent in...more
The USPTO published Revision 07.2022 of the Ninth Edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A change summary is available here....more
Celltrion and Samsung recently filed IPR petitions challenging claims of Regeneron patents directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with aflibercept. Specifically, Celltrion and Samsung have each filed petitions...more
On November 9, 2022, the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2021-00880 and IPR2021-00881, filed by Mylan on two Regeneron patents related to aflibercept—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,254,338 and 9,669,069. The PTAB ruled in...more
Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element. However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that prior art disclosing a class of 957 salts could not inherently anticipate claims to a salt within the class because...more
Sixty years ago, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent appeals, considered whether the prior art disclosure of a chemical genus anticipated species falling within the scope of that...more
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive - In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
As we close out another calendar year, we look back at the top legal developments of 2021 that could influence the market for biologics and biosimilars. There were many interesting decisions and other developments in district...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA v. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC. [OPINION] (2021-1360, 12/07/2021) (MOORE, NEWMAN, and REYNA) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision...more
On March 26, 2021, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, IPR2019-01657, which involved Sanofi’s Patent RE47,614 (“’614 patent”) relating to its LANTUS...more
Originating tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Date: March 12, 2021 - Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Stoll, with Judge Moore writing the precedential order - Result: Appeal dismissed, and mandamus...more
MYLAN LABS. LTD. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, N.V. Before Newman, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over appeals from decisions denying...more
The written description requirement has had a twenty-five year renaissance, particularly in the chemical and biotechnology arts as a way of restricting claim scope to what an inventor has actually invented (see Regents of the...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition: IPR2020-00480; filed January...more
Last year, this blog discussed various strategic considerations for litigants seeking declarations of invalidity in district court actions to avoid being precluded from also seeking inter partes or other post-grant review...more
On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for certiorari filed by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe....more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more