Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
5 Key Takeaways | Hot Topics in Biopharma
Business Better Podcast Episode: Accelerating Life Sciences: How Accelerators and Education Are Joining Forces to Catapult the Life Sciences Industry
Is Your Life Sciences Patent Enabled? The U.S. Supreme Court Is Considering That Question
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments on CAR T-Cell Therapy Patent Dispute
NGE On Demand: COVID-19 and IP Waiver for Patent Protection with Kevin O'Connor and Olivia Luk Bedi
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Dr. Claire Fraser
Enforcing IP in a Pandemic: Considerations, Risks, Strategies
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 1
Verdict in T-Cell Immunotherapy IP Case Tests 'Reasonable Royalty' Concept for Large Damage Awards
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: FDA Regulatory and Patent Implications of the Transition Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Patent law in Europe: What pharmaceutical companies need to know
A data-driven era: Why digital tools are critical to life sciences players
IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an opinion holding that when a district court has ordered discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, but has not yet conclusively defined the scope of that discovery, the...more
In a formulation claim, if elements are listed separately, does this necessarily entail that those elements are “separate and distinct components”? This was the question before the district court in Regeneron...more
In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more
In Baxalta, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding from the District of Delaware (Judge Timothy B. Dyk) that claims 1-4, 19 and 20 of Baxalta’s patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another set of antibody genus claims, finding the case “materially indistinguishable” from those in the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States case, Amgen v....more
The decision concerns the time of filing and admissibility of a revocation action at the Central Division when a parallel infringement action is filed at a local division (Art. 33(4) UPCA). Art 33(4) UPCA states that...more
On April 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination in IPR2016-01542 that claims of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 are obvious. The ’138 patent claims are directed to...more
Based on the denial of rehearing and the Amgen v. Sanofi decision itself, inventors should: Claim as many separate species as possible. Attempt to fashion genus claims that have a limited number of members supported...more
As we previously reported, in April 2021, Amgen petitioned for the full Federal Circuit to reconsider the decision of a three-judge panel that two of Amgen’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 (the “’165 patent”) and...more
An en banc rehearing petition to the Federal Circuit seeks to breathe life back into the widespread practice of patenting a genus of compounds by claiming their common functional characteristics. This claiming practice was...more
UPDATE: On July 9, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Amgen’s leave to appeal (see article here). On November 3, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal heard and dismissed the appeal of the first trial decision under the...more
Today, in the Genentech v. Amgen BPCIA litigation concerning Amgen’s MVASI (bevacizumab-awwb) biosimilar product, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court’s denial of...more
Today, a panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, O’Malley, and Hughes) heard oral argument in Genentech v. Amgen. The case is on appeal from the District of Delaware, where the court denied Genentech’s motion for...more
UPDATE: On November 3, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Amgen’s appeal. See our article here. On April 16, 2020, Justice Southcott of the Federal Court issued the first decision under the amended Patented...more
Following the oral argument two days ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today affirmed the lower court’s denial of Genentech’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin sales of Amgen’s KANJINTI...more
We previously reported on Genentech’s appeal of the district court’s denial of Genentech’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Amgen’s launch of trastuzumab. Today, a Federal Circuit panel (Judges Prost, Wallach, and...more
Below we provide an update on some recent developments from several biosimilar-related cases on appeal before the Federal Circuit. Genentech v. Immunex Rhode Island, Fed. Cir. Case No. 19-2155 – briefing complete in...more
This morning, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 24-page opinion affirming the district court’s judgment in favor of Amgen in its four-year long BPCIA patent ligation against...more
On December 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a rituximab-related appeal by Biogen. The appeal stems from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review...more
On October 4, 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Pfizer’s appeal of its failed motion to dismiss Amgen’s action under section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) for a...more
As we reported, last month in the Amgen v. Hospira litigation concerning Hospira’s Retacrit™ (epoetin alfa) biosimilar, the Delaware district court entered final judgment against Hospira, awarding Amgen $70 million in damages...more
The Situation: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was considered in a November 2017 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Result: The court found that the commercial...more
In a nonprecedential opinion issued on November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that Apotex’s aBLAs for biosimilar versions of Neulasta® and Neupogen® did...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Amgen could not obtain discovery related to activities that might infringe a patent that it had not asserted in its biosimilar patent litigation against Hospira....more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (which you can read more about here), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) sets forth the exclusive federal remedy for failing to provide a copy of the biosimilar application to the...more