Latest Posts › Patents

Share:

Antibody Patents Are Not Immune to § 112: Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC

In Amgen v. Sanofi, the Federal Circuit held that evidence that first came into existence after the priority date may be considered in determining whether a genus patent claim satisfies the written description requirement...more

“Waive” That Issue Goodbye: The Importance of Preserving Arguments and Developing a Full Record

The Federal Circuit recently reminded litigants of the importance of developing a full record in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) proceedings. In Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., the Federal Circuit...more

To the Federal Circuit, Some Petitioners Have No Appeal Whatsoever

On January 9, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix lacked standing to appeal the final written decision of nonobviousness from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) because Phigenix did not offer sufficient...more

Remicade® Update: Double Patenting Redoubles in Post-Gilead Biosimilar Case

On August 17, 2016, in Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., District of Massachusetts Judge Mark Wolf faced a double patenting fact pattern that had not been adjudicated in a district court case since the...more

Federal Circuit Holds That an Offer to Sell a Drug Product Was a Patent-Invalidating Offer for Sale under Pre-AIA § 102(b) Even...

On May 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit determined that Merck’s crystalline calcium salt of tetrahydrofolic acid (“MTHF”) had been the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and held Merck’s MTHF claim in U.S. Patent No....more

5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide