Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Wolf Greenfield’s New Shareholders
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
Tonia Sayour in the Spotlight
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
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
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
On February 28, Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) filed three petitions for inter partes review, challenging the validity of all claims in three patents assigned to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“BMS”). The claims of all three patents are...more
Patent owners generally look to secondary indicia to bolster their nonobvious defenses when prior art and/or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) seem to make the obviousness decision a close call. This...more
We previously reported on Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) complaint alleging AstraZeneca’s PD-L1 antibody product, IMFINZI (durvalumab), infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,402,899 (“the ’899 patent”). BMS alleged that the ’899 patent...more
On April 25, 2023, Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) filed a complaint in the District of Delaware against AstraZeneca related to AstraZeneca’s anti-PD-L1 antibody product, IMFINZI (durvalumab), alleging willful infringement of...more
On Feb. 5, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for a new CAR T-cell therapy, Breyanzi® (lisocabtagene maraleucel), to Juno Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). Breyanzi® is...more
Mark your calendars – on December 9th, the Federal Circuit is slated to hear oral arguments as to whether two Amgen patents claiming a genus of antibodies meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court’s...more
Eliquis®/apixaban - Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., No. 17-374-LPS (Consolidated), 2020 WL 4500226 (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2020) (Stark, J.)...more
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over...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
Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., C.A. No. 17-374-LPS (Consolidated), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179154 (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2018) (Stark, J.)....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 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
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which was a game changer for patent venue. The case drastically narrowed where defendants can be sued and shifted a significant amount...more
In the continuing Amgen v. Sanofi saga, Amgen has asked SCOTUS to take up the issue of written description, which is currently established by showing “whether the disclosure…reasonably conveys…that the inventor had possession...more
There are presently seven biosimilar-related appeals pending before the Federal Circuit. Two of those appeals, Amgen v. Sandoz (Case No. 18-1551) and Amgen v. Coherus (Case No. 18-1993), are from district court judgments in...more
Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 17-379-LPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146372 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017) (Stark, J.)... Drug Product and U.S. Patent: Eliquis® (apixaban); U.S. Patents Nos....more
On October 20, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed in Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. While the order itself may not be...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 2:14-cv-05423; filed August 28, 2014 in the District Court...more
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc. - Addressing the obviousness of a claimed compound where a person of skill would need to make only minor changes to a lead compound to arrive at the claimed invention,...more
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that BMS’s Baraclude® patent is invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court gave little weight to...more
On June 12, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the obviousness of a patent claim directed to a drug molecule. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., ___...more