When the PTAB Attacks! -
In the past few years, the public's perception of the patent system in the United States has been at a low point. One of the causes of this lack of confidence in the system has been the increase...more
Pharmaceutical patent owners have been one of the more vocal groups decrying the creation and existence of inter partes reviews and other PTAB post-issuance proceedings. And for good reason. Congress enacted the...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit decided the Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal case en banc in what could be considered the epitome of a fractured decision. After 148 pages and five separate opinions, the only agreed-to result...more
In November, Chief Judge David P. Ruschke of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products" (see "PTAB Motions to...more
On November 21, 2017, PTAB Chief Judge Ruschke issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products." As we reported at the time, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products determined that the PTAB...more
Last June, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court handed down its interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of biosimilar drugs. As we reported at the time, the...more
Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged...more
In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the...more
More Than a Mere Academic Exercise -
On October 4, 2017, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB can no longer place the burden of establishing the patentability...more
We recently reported that Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware interpreted the second prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan because the first prong was no...more
Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged...more
In the third installment of the "Amgen v." trilogy of BPCIA Federal Circuit cases, the Court in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. answered a question that had been lingering since the very first case -- can a reference product...more
8/11/2017
/ aBLA ,
Amgen ,
Amgen v Hospira ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Hospira ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of...more
6/13/2017
/ aBLA ,
Amgen ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State...more
On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. Sandoz was represented by Deanne E. Maynard, and Amgen was represented by Seth P. Waxman. In addition, Anthony A. Yang presented the...more
4/28/2017
/ aBLA ,
Amgen ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen
On Wednesday, April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. case. This case involves the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which will be...more
4/25/2017
/ aBLA ,
Amgen ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen
On March 31, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB" or "Board") granted a motion to amend claims in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Shire LLC (IPR2015-02009). This is, of course, an uncommon event. Depending on...more
As we reported last week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case on Monday March 27. In that previous report, we covered the background of the case, and...more
Next week, on Monday March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case. This case involves the interpretation of the current patent venue statute. And while...more
In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more
3/22/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Patent Agent Privilege ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
On Friday, the Supreme Court granted both petitions for writs of certiorari and consolidated the Sandoz v. Amgen (No. 15-1039) and Amgen v. Sandoz (No. 15-1195) appeals. Sandoz had petitioned the Court on February 16, 2016...more
Can any petitioner appeal a Board's final written decision from an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding? Contrary to the language of 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) which permits any party "who is dissatisfied with" the...more
In the past few years, the Supreme Court has been single-handedly tackling the so-called Patent Troll problem. Sure, in that time, the President and Congress have made Patent Trolls a focus of their agendas, and have...more
On Tuesday, December 6, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), with the pertinent section highlighted...more
On Friday, December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. ...more