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?
Over the last 15 years, the discussion over the types of subject matter that are considered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been mostly focused on the software and biological fields. Several years ago, the Federal...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
In a 2022 decision involving Janssen and Pharmascience, the Federal Court found that the claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 (335 patent, relating to paliperidone palmitate (Janssen’s INVEGA SUSTENNA)) were not invalid...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more
MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1413 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021) - For those interested in an important Section 112 written description case, we recommend reading the Juno...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 previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
Whether you are pursuing patents on your new technology, thinking about bringing patent infringement litigation or defending patent infringement claims in court, knowing the important developments in patent law will help you...more
Written Description of Therapeutic Efficacy - In two 2019 rulings, the Federal Circuit invoked the “written description requirement” of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to require evidentiary support for therapeutic efficacy. Now that the...more
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling that asserted claims of two related pharmaceutical patents...more
The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has been asked to upgrade the status of two recent decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which determined that two medical innovations are eligible to be...more
Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent...more
This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has handed down a pair of opinions concerning Section 101 in the field of pharmaceuticals and life sciences. In both cases, the district courts held claims of the...more
The latest Federal Circuit decision on subject matter eligibility in the life sciences came down (by a divided court) in favor of eligibility, in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. The claims at issue fell into the...more
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories was handed down in 2012, diagnostic method claims have been routinely invalidated by the district courts and those decisions...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
BUT FOR A CLERICAL ERROR TO BE ADDRESSED ON REMAND, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS FINDINGS OF INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Case Name: INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more
Addressing secondary considerations of non-obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that skepticism does not need to be...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding nonobvious the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”), which are directed to a method of treating cancer. The claims...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. GNC Corp., Appeal Nos. 2018-1657, 2018-1666 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019) - In an appeal from a district court decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s...more
Cited Statutory Sections: 101 and 103 - This appeal concerned 10 inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by petitioners Neptune Generics, Fresenius Kabi USA and Mylan Laboratories against all of the claims of U.S. Patent No....more
Federal Circuit Determines Time-Barred Petitioner Joined to an IPR Has Appellate Standing - In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech., Appeal Nos. 2017-2088, -2089, -2091, the Federal Circuit held that a...more