4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Corporate Perspectives on Intellectual Property
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
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
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
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - U.S. State Data Privacy Update
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Many life science companies are using AI/ML to identify new disease targets and new therapeutics, predict the efficacy and toxicity of potential clinical therapeutic candidates, design clinical trials and dosing or treatment...more
Antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is a promising class of cancer treatments with accelerating U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and rapidly growing market size as discussed in previous articles in this series. This...more
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 March 4, 2024, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed four IPRs challenging The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) patents covering methods of treatment using pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name...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
Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. The Supreme Court emphasized “the need...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
G1/23 – EPO Enlarged Board of Appeals of the EPO “available” (referral from T 0438/19) - Under which circumstances can the public prior use of a product constitute prior art for novelty or inventive step[s], specifically...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
The Federal Circuit has held that the claims of a “SNALP” patent were inherently anticipated by prior art. In Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc., Arbutus appealed a decision in an inter partes proceeding by the Patent...more
In UCB Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement of invalidity on obviousness grounds but reversed the finding of anticipation. In reaching its decision on anticipation,...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