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?
This case involves an appeal from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Regeneron) efforts to prevent defendants from marketing biosimilar versions of EYLEA®, a drug used to treat eye diseases, by asserting patent infringement....more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was unpatentable due to obviousness-type double patenting. The court found...more
In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2024-1965, -1966, -2082, -2083 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a 31-page decision that touches on a variety of issues, including...more
The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed an appeal by Merck from a decision of the Federal Court... dismissing Merck’s application for judicial review of Health Canada’s refusal to add Canadian Patent No. 2,830,806 (806...more
In a year of extraordinary change, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rose to the challenge - Given the challenges of 2020 – a global pandemic, a deep economic recession, and a turbulent presidential election, among...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s New Year’s eve opinion in Ball Metal v. Crown Packaging, though nonprecedential, raises important considerations for pharmaceutical and biologics patents – where patent...more
Orders of prohibition relating to polymorphic form patent for PRISTIQ upheld on appeal - As previously reported, the Federal Court, in a pair of decisions, granted orders prohibiting Apotex and Teva from marketing their...more
FCA overturns cefaclor damages decision on prejudgment interest issue, provides guidance on NIA defence - On November 23, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) allowed in part Apotex’s appeal of a decision awarding Eli...more
The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) provided a variety of new ways to administratively challenge patents, including the now widely used inter partes review (“IPR”) procedure. In two recent appeals of IPR decisions, Genentech...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
On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794. F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Sandoz v. Amgen, 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014), appealed from the Federal Circuit. The petitions involve the...more
Amgen has filed its appeal brief in Amgen v. Hospira, following the Federal Circuit’s denial of Hospira’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal presents an important question for biosimilar...more
The Federal Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is a requirement for all biosimilar applicants regardless of whether...more
Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide Notice of Commercial Launch: What You Need To Know - Case Background - In an opinion released today in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held biosimilar applicants who...more
On October 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) opted not to rehear its previously issued split decision in the court’s first analysis of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation...more