In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did...more
On May 8, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of AstraZeneca’s challenges to the Inflation Reduction Act’s Drug Price Negotiation Program and CMS’s Guidance implementing...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final...more
8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more
Bayer's ‘053 patent on its drug Xarelto® expires in November 2024, and Bayer granted Mylan a covenant not to sue. Bayer has a second patent that is subject to a pediatric exclusivity that expires later - February 2025 - and...more
On December 8, 2021, a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction temporarily enjoining enforcement of the California state law Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, which attempts to sanction reverse-payment...more
Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Appeal No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2020). Argentum and other petitioners filed IPRs against Novartis’ patent related to methods of treating...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR), finding that the challenger lacked appellate standing because it had terminated its attempts to develop the infringing...more
In Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the Federal Circuit dismissed Momenta’s appeal from an adverse IPR decision for lack of standing after Momenta suspended its potentially infringing biosimilar...more
On February 7, 2019, in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal brought by a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) for lack of standing and mootness because...more
The Federal Circuit has on several occasions taken the opportunity to address (and in doing so, flesh out) the requirements for Article III standing to appeal an adverse determination in a post-grant review proceeding...more
The Federal Circuit just issued a decision that confirms its stance on Article III standing for appeals from inter partes reviews (IPRs), making it tougher for unsuccessful IPR petitioners to obtain judicial review of U.S....more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (the “‘650 Patent”), which is owned by UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”) and is directed to chemical derivatives of a drug for treating...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
As we have previously reported, Momenta appealed a PTAB decision upholding the patentability of BMS’s U.S. Patent No. 8,476,239, relating to BMS’s ORENCIA® (abatacept) product. On October 1, 2018, Momenta informed the Court...more
As we reported here, Momenta is appealing a PTAB decision upholding the patentability of BMS’s U.S. Patent No. 8,476,239 (“the ’239 patent”), which relate to BMS’s Orencia® (abatacept) product. Momenta has not yet filed an...more
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions address when a party has standing to challenge the validity of a patent. Though the cases arose in different contexts, they both center on the question of what it means for a party to be...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, in which the court held that Altaire had standing to appeal the PTAB’s final written decision in a post-grant review...more
Which parties to an IPR proceeding have standing to either appeal or participate in an appeal from an adverse final written decision by the Board? The Federal Circuit had previously held that a petitioner that did not...more
Biosimilar developers have been aggressive in filing petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of biologics patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), many of them preceding the filing of a marketing...more
The latest news round-up from our Hogan Lovells ITC Section 337 practice, including a new section featuring "tips from the bench" by former ITC Judge Theodore (Ted) R. Essex. ...more
Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd., No. 16-3145-WTL-MJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27016 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017) (Lawrence, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Pataday® (olopatadine); U.S. Patents Nos....more