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?
On July 24, 2025, the PTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied Amgen’s IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 challenging Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,856,320 (“the ’320 patent”) and...more
On July 16, 2025, the District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a Consent Judgment and Injunction in view of a settlement agreement between Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and Accord BioPharma, Inc. (“Accord”)...more
On June 25, 2025, Amgen filed its sixth and seventh BPCIA lawsuits against proposed biosimilars of Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab), Case No. 1:25-cv-12152 (D.N.J.) against Hikma and Gedeon Richter’s RGB-14 and Case No....more
The Federal Court has granted Alexion a declaration of infringement and an injunction preventing Amgen from manufacturing, using, and selling its proposed biosimilar eculizumab product, BEKEMV, in Canada until the expiration...more
On May 14, 2025, HyClone Laboratories, LLC (“HyClone”) filed a Motion to Quash in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, seeking to quash Amgen Inc.’s (“Amgen”) subpoena to HyClone issued in Amgen’s denosumab BPCIA...more
Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more
On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) in the ongoing...more
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
On February 28, 2025, Amgen filed three IPRs against Bristol-Myers Squibb’s patents covering methods of treatment using a combination of Opdivo® (nivolumab), an anti-PD-1 antibody, and Yervoy® (ipilimumab), an anti-CTLA-4...more
On February 4, 2025, HyClone Laboratories, LLC (“HyClone”), a cell culture media supplier, filed a Motion to Quash a subpoena issued by Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”). The underlying subpoena was issued in Amgen’s ongoing denosumab...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
The legal standard for enablement – the statutory requirement under 35 USC § 112 that a patent must enable those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention – remains unchanged after the US Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court issued no fewer than six opinions on Thursday, May 18, addressing questions including whether an internet platform might be held liable as an aider and abettor of terrorist activity, and whether Andy...more
Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al, No. 21-757 (S. Ct. May 18, 2023) The Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision today concerning the enablement requirement found in Section 112 of the Patent Act. Specifically, the...more
The questions from the high court during oral argument at the end of March 2023 were fairly telling of the 9-0 ruling that came down yesterday in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757). In fact, it did not come as much of a...more
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was passed as part of health reform signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This year, the BPCIA turns 10. While the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway has...more
On September 22, 2017, a Delaware federal jury found that Hospira infringed one of Amgen’s Epogen® (EPO) patents. Hospira maintained that its production of EPO was protected by the safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) which...more
In one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents...more