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?
It is well established that an enantiomerically pure compound exhibiting advantageous properties not present in its isomer or its corresponding racemic mixture, can be patented even if its corresponding racemic mixtures are...more
Cell and gene therapies represent a transformative frontier in modern medicine, offering potential cures for previously untreatable conditions. However, securing intellectual property (IP) protection for these innovations...more
The CRISPR-Cas9 patent landscape remains complex and unsettled. The Federal Circuit’s latest decision in University of California v. Broad Institute1 revived the high-stakes dispute between UC2 and Broad3 over foundational...more
Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing life science R&D (particularly in the realm of drug discovery) and challenging the traditional "human inventorship" requirement for U.S. patents. Recent guidance from the USPTO...more
In 2024, not one but two Nobel Prizes (in Chemistry and Physics) were awarded to researchers for their work in artificial intelligence ("AI"). Particularly noteworthy for the life science community is the Nobel Prize in...more
The scientific benefits and legal risks of AI-driven drug discovery are consequential. But recent IP law decisions allude to a general concept that IP rights will not be awarded if AI completely or significantly replaces...more
AI is vaulting drug discovery forward leaps and bounds—and now regulators are beginning to catch up, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office recently issuing new guidelines on the patentability of AI-assisted...more
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released for public comment a “Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March In-Rights” (“March-In Framework”) on December 8, 2023...more
On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a draft guidance document regarding the government’s exercise of “march-in” rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole march-in...more
On December 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced a blueprint for a framework that may be a tough pill to swallow for the pharmaceutical industry. This framework suggests that drug prices should be a crucial factor in...more
Artificial intelligence is transforming drug design — but it could also disrupt intellectual property law. To realize AI’s full promise, the US may have to reconsider its approach to issuing patents....more
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
The case of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, U.S., No. 21-757 dealt with patent law’s “enablement” requirement. Essentially, the Court affirmed 150 years of precedent requiring the invention to be described “‘in such full, clear,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...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
This morning, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Under that requirement, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), a patent specification...more
On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning the appropriate legal standard for patent law's enablement requirement. That requirement is found in Title 35...more
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Amgen v. Sanofi, the closely-watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally-defined genus claims. The question raised...more
On Monday, March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757. William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that is extremely significant for companies that operate in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and chemical sectors. At issue in Amgen v. Sanofi is a determination of the...more
AURIS HEALTH, INC., v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL OPERATIONS, INC., Before Dyk, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Summary: Evidence of generic industry skepticism cannot, by itself, form...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision, Junker v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 2021-1649 (Feb. 10, 2022), serves as a warning to prospective filers that making pre-filing offers for sale, or engaging in discussions for future sales,...more
The recently reversed jury verdict and billion-dollar judgment in favor of Juno Therapeutics on the grounds that the asserted claims did not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Juno...more
Patent and trademark issues effecting pharmaceutical laboratories, biotechs, food supplements and dietary products professionals, cosmetics companies and medical devices manufacturers is continually evolving across France and...more