Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Unexpected Paths to IP Law with Dan Young and Colin White
How IP Can Fuel Your Startup's Growth
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) after applying the Fintiv factors, despite Petitioner’s...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
Procedural History - Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Case No. 2021-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) is an appeal by the Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Minnesota”) from a final...more
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA V. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus...more
Update: see our article here regarding the dismissal of ViiV’s appeal. On April 6, 2020, the Federal Court granted Gilead’s motion for summary trial and dismissed ViiV’s action: ViiV Healthcare Company v Gilead Sciences...more
About Life Sciences Court Report: We will periodically report on recently filed biotech and pharma litigation. Allergan USA, Inc. v. Prollenium US Inc. 1-20-cv-00104; filed January 23, 2020 in the District Court of Delaware...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two opinions on December 7 that address two unsettled questions relating to obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). These issues are of particular interest to...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a pair of decisions concerning the Gilead doctrine, which allowed later-issuing patents to be obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) references against earlier-issuing patents....more
Case Name: Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Civ. No. 14-846, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25663 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018) (Stark, J.)....more
On February 16, 2018, Judge Stark of the District of Delaware overturned the largest patent verdict in history. This extremely contentious patent infringement suit between Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Idenix”), a subsidiary...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. introduced even more confusion in an already confusing area of the law – namely obviousness-type double patenting. Obviousness-type double patenting...more
Last month, following a jury verdict in federal district court in Delaware awarding Plaintiff Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC $2.54 billion in damages—“the largest damages verdict ever returned in a patent [infringement]...more
Universities have traditionally been reluctant to enforce their intellectual property (IP) against third parties. There are many reasons for this position, including adverse publicity associated with such suits, the time...more
Merck Ordered to Pay $14 Million in Attorneys’ Fees to Rival Gilead After a Patent Infringement Trial Involving Hepatitis C Drugs - On July 14, 2017, in a stunning reversal of fortune, a federal court in San Jose, CA,...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-05591; filed July 16, 2015 in the District...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00572; filed July 7, 2015 in the District Court of...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Eli Lilly and Company et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-01047; filed July 6, 2015 in the Southern...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLC 1:15-cv-00416; filed May 21, 2015 in the District Court of...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-02499; filed April 7, 2015 in the District Court of New...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Gilead Sciences Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00289; filed April 1, 2015 in the District...more
Case Name: Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2013-1418, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7494 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2014) (Circuit Judges Rader, Prost, and Chen presiding; Opinion by Chen, J.; Dissent by Rader, C.J.) (appeal from...more
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - Addressing invalidation of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s...more
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) owns United States Patent No. 5,763,483 and United States Patent No. 5,952,375. The patents feature common inventors and disclose similar material in the field of anti-viral compounds. Natco...more
The Federal Circuit extended the scope of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) in a split decision rendered in Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. In doing so, the panel majority...more
Can a later-granted patent render an earlier-granted patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting? In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Limited, the Federal Circuit held that it can. This decision could have...more