Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 209: North Carolina’s Life Sciences Industry with Laura Gunter of NCLifeSci
Podcast — Drug Pricing: How the Demise of Chevron Deference and Other Litigation May Impact the Pharmaceutical Industry
Understanding Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The PBM Landscape Explained
False Claims Act Insights - Are All Healthcare “Kickbacks” Subject to FCA Liability?
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 204: Accelerating Life Sciences Startups with James Chappell of SCbio
Podcast — Drug Pricing: How Are Payers Responding to the IRA?
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 203: Manufacturing Specialty Drugs for Rare Diseases in North Carolina with Paul Testa of Kyowa Kirin
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 201: SHL Medical’s Investment in the Carolinas with Kimberlee Steele of SHL Medical
The Future of Laboratory Testing Just Got a Little Clearer: FDA's Final Rule on LDTs – Diagnosing Health Care
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 195: Life Sciences and Healthcare Workforce Development with Dr. John Hauser of Gaston College
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 194: Workforce Development for the Life Sciences Industry with David Stefanich of Rymedi
FDA Releases Laboratory-Developed Tests Final Rule – Thought Leaders in Health Law
Changes in FDA, Cannabis Policies and AI Developments
340B Drug Pricing Program Compliance
Episode 185: America’s Bioeconomy with Sarah Glaven, White House Research Biologist
Episode 183: Site Development for Life Sciences Companies with Adam Bruns of Site Selection Magazine
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 171: Laura Gunter, President of the NC Life Sciences Organization
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 169: Shirley Paddock, Senior VP of Clinical Development, Syneos Health
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 168: Christine Harhaj, Senior Director of Advocacy & Strategic Alliances, PhRMA
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 167: Dr. Ehsan Samei & Dr. Susan Halabi, Triangle CERSI
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
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
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
The case of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, U.S., No. 21-757 dealt with patent law’s “enablement” requirement. Essentially, the Court affirmed 150 years of precedent requiring the invention to be described “‘in such full, clear,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
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
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
This morning, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Under that requirement, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), a patent specification...more
On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning the appropriate legal standard for patent law's enablement requirement. That requirement is found in Title 35...more
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Amgen v. Sanofi, the closely-watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally-defined genus claims. The question raised...more
On Monday, March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757. William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that is extremely significant for companies that operate in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and chemical sectors. At issue in Amgen v. Sanofi is a determination of the...more
Before enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, it was understood that an inventor’s secret commercialization of an invention through sale or use can operate like prior art against that inventor’s subsequent patent...more
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (Jan. 22, 2019)....more
Addressing whether the on-sale bar of America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(a)(1) applies to confidential sales where specific details are not made public, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the post-AIA...more
If the term "happy hour" in this article's title caught your attention, you may be disappointed by what comes next. This article is actually about limitations on patent protection, which I would argue is just as...more
Helsinn confirmed that the AIA did not alter the meaning of the “on-sale” bar. In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, the Supreme Court addressed whether a confidential sale of an invention to a...more
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
The Supreme Court recently issued its closely-watched decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which has direct implications regarding the scope of § 102 prior art under the America Invents Act...more
Prior to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) prohibited patenting an invention that was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for...more
Inventors should not delay the filing of their patent applications, and preferably should file within one year of any commercialization of the invention, as confirmed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2019....more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the...more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, the United States Supreme Court held that a prior public sale of a patented product could destroy the novelty of a patent for that product even though there was no...more
U.S. patent law states that any invention that was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent” is not eligible for patent protection. The Supreme Court recently confirmed...more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), also called the Patent Reform Act of 2011, was enacted to overhaul the U.S. patent system and harmonize the domestic patent laws with those in the rest of the world. The AIA also created new...more