Genentech

News & Analysis as of

Prosecutors win $67 million settlement with pharma firms accused of deceit

Federal prosecutors have wrung $67 million in a settlement with two pharmaceutical companies accused of deceiving doctors to prescribe a drug that the firms knew would be ineffective in treating lung cancer patients....more

District Court Orders Production of Settlement Agreements But Denies Request for Deposition That Would Go Beyond Four Corners of...

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (the "Cabilly III patent"), owned by Defendants, is invalid and therefore Plaintiffs do not owe royalties with respect to...more

II Ca-Be-lly or Not II Ca-Be-lly: Is The Famous Cabilly II Antibody Patent Near Extinction?

On February 5, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Genentech’s “Cabilly II” patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415). This triggered the one-month deadline...more

Cabilly II IPR Update: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Genentech, Inc.

In July of 2015, Sanofi filed petition for an inter partes review (IPR2015-01624) for 15 claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,331,415 (“Cabilly II”). In the antibody field, the Cabilly family of patents is well known and is believed to...more

No False Claims Act Case Where There is No False Claim – DNJ Throws Out Qui Tam Action Against Genentech

Halloween has come and gone. The Drug and Device Law Little Dogs stayed in their costumes (Batgirl and a rabbi) long enough to be photographed for (unsuccessful) entries for a pet costume contest. There was ample candy –...more

Court Report - October 2015 #2

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Mylan Pharma Acquisition Ltd. et al. v Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC 1:15-cv-06700; filed July 30, 2015 in the Northern District...more

Sanofi Seeks IPR of Cabilly Patent

On July 27, 2015, Sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the “Cabilly II” patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415. The Cabilly II patent granted shortly after I...more

A Year’s Review of Massachusetts Tax Cases

Allied Domecq Spirits & Wines USA, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1125 (2014) - In a unique case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a ruling of the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) that two corporations...more

Will the European Court of Justice Conclude that Antitrust Law Prohibits Royalties for Invalid Patents?

The European Court of Justice recently announced that it will issue a decision in Genentech Inc. v. Hoechst GmbH, in response to a request from the Paris Court of Appeals for clarification on whether European antitrust law...more

Genentech’s Distribution of Prescribing Information to Physicians is Alleged to Infringe Method Patent

On January 31, 2014, Phigenix, Inc. (“Phigenix”) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia alleging that the sale and use of the drug Kadcyla by Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,080,534B2,...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Patentees Bear the Burden of Proof of Infringement in DJ Actions Brought by Licensee

A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more

How Trade Mark Defendants are Winning from MedImmune

In 2007, the US Supreme Court set a new test for declaratory judgment actions in MedImmune. Its decision continues to have a profound impact on trade mark cases, explain Bobby Ghajar and Carolyn Toto. One-Minute Read...more

News from Abroad: UK Court of Appeal Considers Sufficiency

The Court of Appeal recently heard a case relating to Genentech's patent, which claimed the use of human vascular endothelial growth factor (hVEGF) antagonists for the treatment of non-cancerous diseases which are...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Burden of Proof to Apply in Patent Licensee Challenges

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that patent licensees could challenge their obligation to pay patent license royalties under a license agreement without first breaching the license agreement by halting royalty...more

Patent Watch: Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc.

On May 10, 2013, in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader, Dyk, Reyna*) affirmed the district court's denial of Genentech's motion to enjoin Sanofi from...more

Federal Circuit Refuses To Enjoin International Arbitration Of Patent Claims

Just after I posted about the awesome power of federal courts to enjoin other cases, the Federal Circuit reminds us the power is not absolute....more

Court Report - May 12, 2013

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Genentech, Inc. et al. 3:13-cv-02045; filed May 3, 2013 in the Northern District of...more

Court Report -- March 03, 2013

In This Issue: Eli Lilly and Company et al. v. Genentech, Inc. et al.; Depomed Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. - Florida et al.; Eli Lilly and Company v. Accord Healthcare Inc., USA; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al....more

18 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×