Latest Publications

Share:

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Extends Petrella Rule Barring Laches to Patent Context

Three years ago, in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the equitable defense of laches is not available against copyright claims for damages brought within the Copyright Act’s three-year...more

Biosimilars: Solicitor General Recommends Granting Certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz

Responding to the Supreme Court’s request for its views, the Solicitor General recently recommended granting certiorari and reversing some of the Federal Circuit’s key holdings in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195)....more

Will the Supreme Court Review Whether FDA-Mandated Bioequivalence Testing to Maintain Approval Falls Within the § 271(e)(1) Safe...

The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more

Federal Circuit: A Biosimilar Applicant Must Provide Notice of Intent to Market a Biosimilar Product, No Exceptions

On July 5, 2016, in Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the Federal Circuit again held that a biosimilar applicant must provide its biologic competitor with 180 days’ notice of intent to commercially market a biosimilar product....more

No Exception to Statutory Requirement that a Biosimilar Applicant Provide Notice of Intent to Market its Product

Last week in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), a unanimous Federal Circuit panel ruled that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), a biosimilar applicant...more

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Leaves Intact PTAB Authority to Institute and Regulate Inter Partes Review Proceedings

This week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court decided two important questions related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over inter partes review proceedings. First,...more

Biosimilars: Supreme Court Calls for Solicitor General’s Views in Amgen v. Sandoz

On Monday, June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court deferred a decision on the certiorari petitions filed by both parties from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794 F.3d 1347 (2015), and instead called for the views...more

Riddle Me This: The Federal Circuit Provides a Measure of Clarity to the Enigmatic Biosimilar Approval Pathway

In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2015-1499), a fractured panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided two issues of first impression relating to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009...more

Intellectual Property Bulletin Winter 2013: Murky Waters: Post-Approval Regulatory Activities and the § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor

On January 14, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's exclusion in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011), of post-approval...more

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2013

In This Bulletin: - Just Moot It: Supreme Court in Already v. Nike Clarifies When a Covenant Not to Sue Can Kill a Declaratory Judgment Case - Murky Waters: Post-Approval Regulatory Activities and the §...more

10 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.