Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
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
We previously reported on the litigation brought by ModernaTX, Inc. and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively, “Moderna”) against BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech US Inc. (collectively, “BioNTech”), and Pfizer Inc....more
The Federal Circuit handed down an opinion last week that invalidated several asserted claims and found infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) of the claims, while refusing to modify its judgment on infringement after...more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more
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
In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Acerta Pharma B.V. (IPR2023-00478), a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied IPR institution where the asserted prior art was cumulative of that considered during prosecution. This denial...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
On June 14, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upholding an Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims in U.S. Patent Application 15/131,442 (’442 application). The Federal...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
A claim is said to be anticipated when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation of the claim. But what happens when a prior art reference discloses some aspects of the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
Hosted by ACI, 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference returns to New York City for another exciting year with curated programming that not only addresses the hot topics, but also puts them within the context of pre-suit...more
Procedural History - Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Case No. 2021-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) is an appeal by the Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Minnesota”) from a final...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-8966 (SRC), 2022 WL 17959811 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate); U.S....more
As we ring in the new year, we look back at the top legal developments of 2022 that could influence the market for biologics and biosimilars. There were many interesting decisions and other developments in district court, at...more
Almost four years ago, in a relatively rare occurrence based on there being an insufficient factual record to permit proper appellate review, the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court decision rendering invalid the claims...more
In the weeks preceding a recent Hatch-Waxman bench trial, a district court excluded portions of an expert’s opinion on obviousness that addressed internal documents and inventor testimony concerning the “inventors’ path” to...more
Case Name: Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Civ. No. 19-78-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2022) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Esbriet® (pirfenidone); U.S. Patent Nos. 7,566,729 (“the ’729 patent”), 7,635,707...more
Case Name: Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-2106, 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Circuit Judges Newman, Prost, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Dissenting Opinion by...more
In a crowded pharmaceutical art, the deficiencies thereof being so patent that the FDA encouraged industry to address and correct them, concerning a formulation developed to address the opioid crisis raging earlier in this...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
In a precedential opinion this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, in an appeal brought by HEC Pharm challenging the written description in Novartis’s 9,187,405...more
When does the absence of evidence turn into evidence of absence, and when does such absence amount to an adequate written description of the absence of a step of a method claim? This is a question that comes readily to mind...more