Myriad has appealed the district court decision that denied its motion for a preliminary injunction against Ambry Genetics Corp. According to a report in Bloomberg BNA Life Sciences Law & Industry Report™, on April 14, 2014,...more
4/17/2014
/ Ambry ,
AMP v Myriad ,
Appeals ,
Life Sciences ,
Myriad ,
Myriad v Ambry ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
USPTO
In Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that two Roche Boniva patents are invalid as obvious. The conclusion of obviousness is not particularly remarkable...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision denying Endo’s motion for summary judgment of infringement based on an implied license. The Federal Circuit found that...more
In Mohsenzadeh v. Lee (decided March 19, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute does not provide PTA to a divisional application when the USPTO...more
The new USPTO patent subject matter eligibility guidelines set forth a detailed analytical framework for evaluating whether claims satisfy the patent subject matter eligibility requirement of 35 USC § 101. If you are an...more
Are claims that recite a “solvate” of a chemical compound invalid for lack of written description if the patent does not describe any specific solvates? In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., the Federal Circuit...more
The USPTO’s new patent subject matter eligibility guidelines (the “Guidelines”) include examples that apply the multi-factored analysis mandated by the Guidelines to compositions that include one or more “natural products” as...more
In a six-four en banc decision in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North Am. Corp., a divided Federal Circuit confirmed its practice of de novo claim construction review. The main question arising from the...more
In Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that Zydus’s proposed generic product infringed Takeda’s Prevacid® SoluTab™ patent, but...more
In Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had reversed the Examiner’s rejection of most of the claims of the patent at issue....more
Although SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA is a non-precedential Federal Circuit decision, it could be interesting for that very reason, if it is a reflection of what the court sees as settled aspects of...more
In Medtronic CoreValve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the patent at issue was invalid because of a defective priority claim. While practitioners may cringe...more
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement, even in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee. In reaching its...more
In Abraxis Bioscience, LLC v. Kappos, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00730., (D.D.C. Jan. 08, 2014), Judge Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia upheld the USPTO’s interpretation of the Patent Term...more
On January 10, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., to review the legal standard for holding a patent claim invalid as indefinite, under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph....more
In Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., the Federal Circuit decided an appeal that did not present any patent issues, finding that the allegations of patent infringement in the underlying complaint gave it exclusive...more
In Institut Pasteur v. Focarino, the Federal Circuit found that the obviousness determination by the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences was not supported by substantial evidence, and rested on an “erroneous...more
In the non-precedential decision in In re Eaton, the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO Board decision affirming rejections of anticipation and obviousness. The court found that the Board decision strayed from its own claim...more
In Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that Ohio Willow Wood had both withheld material information and made material representations during proceedings before the USPTO. Because the district...more
In Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding Intellect’s patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. This is a rare case where the applicant was found to...more
In MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the admissibility of expert testimony that was not fully aligned with the district court’s claim construction. In so doing, the court...more
William F. Smith of Woodcock Washburn LLP and Joseph Mallon of Knobbe Martens (colleagues on the IPO Patent Office Practice Committee)** have prepared a white paper that encourages us to take a step back from the current U.S....more
The hearing on Myriad’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Ambry Genetics is scheduled for September 11, 2013, before Judge Robert A. Shelby at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah....more
9/9/2013
/ AMP v Myriad ,
DNA ,
Genetic Materials ,
Human Genes ,
Injunctions ,
Myriad ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
SCOTUS
In Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction that interpreted “2,4-D monooxygenase” in accordance with its established scientific meaning, even though...more
In Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, the Federal Circuit determined that the Novozymes amylase patent at issue did not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112, because the disclosure did...more