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?
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed....more
Case Name: Teva Branded Pharm. Products R&D, Inc. v. Deva Holding A.S., Civ. No. 24-4404 (SRC), 2024 WL 3966314 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2024) (Chesler, J.)....more
Case Name: Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2023-1247, 2023 WL 3335538 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023)(Circuit Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Prost presiding; Opinion by Dyk, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Connolly, J.)....more
The Supreme Court is expected to consider Teva’s pending petition for certiorari in the highly anticipated GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. on May 11, 2023, a case that could carry enormous implications for the...more
Case Name: Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 22-7528, 22-7529 (CCC), 2023 WL 1883357 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2023) (Cecchi, J.) - Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Hetlioz® (tasimelteon); U.S. Patent No....more
On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit withdrew its October 2020 opinion in GSK v. Teva, summarized in this post on induced infringement of method-of-treatment claims, and issued an opinion that reiterated the prior holding...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement where substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of induced infringement by...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now vacated its prior ruling finding induced infringement based on so-called skinny labeling on a pharmaceutical product. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA...more
Coreg® (carvedilol) - Case Name: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2018-1976, -2023 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2020) (Circuit Judges Prost, Newman, and Moore presiding; Opinion by Newman, J.; Dissent by Prost, C.J.)...more
Addressing the issue of whether a generic pharmaceutical company can be found to induce infringement even when all patented uses have been “carved out” of the label (resulting in a so-called “skinny label”), the US Court of...more
On October 2, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.1 that addressed whether a generic drug manufacturer induced infringement of a method of use patent when its product...more
BECAUSE A SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THE LIMITATIONS OF ONE PRIOR-ART REFERENCE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO SELECT THE TEACHINGS OF ANOTHER REFERENCE TO OVERCOME THEM, THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT WERE OBVIOUS. Case...more
About Life Sciences Court Report: We will periodically report on recently filed biotech and pharma litigation. ...more
THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF 1% IVERMECTIN FORMULATION ARE INVALID ON THE BASIS OF ANTICIPATION IN LIGHT OF A PRIOR ART REFERENCE THAT TEACHES APPLICATION OF 1-5% IVERMECTIN FORMULATION FOR TREATMENT OF THE SAME INDICATION. Case...more
The Court Denied Defendant’s Motion To Enforce Its Settlement Agreement With Plaintiff After The At-risk Launch And Subsequent Settlement Of Another Defendant. ...more
Case Name: Teva Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. Azar, C.A. No. 18-2394 (RDM), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30346 (D.D.C. Feb 26, 2019) (Moss, J.)....more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit distinguished method of treatment claims that involve personalized dosing from the claims invalidated in Mayo v. Prometheus, and found them...more
Case Name: Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2015-2021, -2022, -2023, -2024, -2025, -2026, -2028, -2031, -2033, -2034, -2035, -2041, -2042, -2046, -2047, -2049, -2059, -2060, 2016-1025, -1060, -1117,...more
Case Name: Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-01076-M (N.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2017) (Lynn, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Soolantra® (ivermectin); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,815,816 (“the ’816...more
Case Name: Allergan Sales, LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 2:15-cv-01471-FRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127886 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2017) (Payne, M.J.). Drug Product and U.S. Patent: Delzicol® (mesalamine); U.S....more
Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Civ. No. 17-275(FLW), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78002 (D.N.J. May 23, 2017) (Wolfson, J.)....more
Case Name: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7650 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2017) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Mayer, and O’Malley presiding; Opinion by Dyk, J.) (appeal from D.N.J.,...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently construed the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) in a way that will make it easier for petitioners to challenge third party patents. While in an inter-partes...more
Case Name: Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 15-1455-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4545 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2017) (Bryson, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Restasis® (cyclosporine ophthalmic solution); U.S....more
On May 1st, the Federal Circuit ruled that the America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the statutory meaning of “on sale” where the existence of a sale was publicly announced prior to patenting, even if the sale did not...more