4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Corporate Perspectives on Intellectual Property
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - U.S. State Data Privacy Update
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
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of “analogous prior art,” a patent law doctrine fundamental to the legal determination of whether a patent is invalid as obvious over the prior art....more
The decision concerns the time of filing and admissibility of a revocation action at the Central Division when a parallel infringement action is filed at a local division (Art. 33(4) UPCA). Art 33(4) UPCA states that...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that a prior art reference relating to automotive engine parts was not analogous art to the challenged...more
Case Name: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp., C.A. No. 20-cv-804-RGA, 2022 WL 2643532 (D. Del. July 8, 2022) (Hall, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Jevtana® (cabazitaxel); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,927,592 (“the ’592...more
On March 26, 2021, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, IPR2019-01657, which involved Sanofi’s Patent RE47,614 (“’614 patent”) relating to its LANTUS...more
As we previously reported, Mylan filed a number of IPR petitions challenging a total of seven of Sanofi-Aventis’s patents related to Lantus® (insulin glargine injection). On May 29, 2020, the PTAB issued Final Written...more
We previously reported on Judge Chesler’s claim construction order in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan et al. concerning Mylan’s proposed insulin glargine pen device, Vystra. This week, following a 5-day bench trial held on December...more
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that pharmaceutical companies that wrongly list patents in FDA’s Orange Book must prove they acted in good faith to avoid antitrust liability. In re Lantus Direct Purchaser...more
In a holding that could significantly broaden the antitrust inquiry in the context of the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme, on February 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion that may have...more
PLAINTIFF’S DISCLAIMER OF CLAIMS FOUND INVALID BY THE PTAB MOOTED ANY CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PATENT, AND A SECOND PATENT-IN-SUIT WAS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN...more
The Federal Circuit applied the constitutional principle under Article III that there must be a case or controversy for a federal court to enter judgment (in this case, of invalidity) in ANDA litigation that can be vitiated...more
As we reported here, on June 9, 2017, Mylan filed two IPR petitions challenging Sanofi-Aventis’s U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652 (IPR2017-01528) and U.S. Patent No. 7,713,930 (IPR2017-01526), related to Sanofi’s Lantus® (insulin...more
On May 29, 2018, a week-long bench trial began before Judge Andrews in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. in the District of Delaware. As we reported here, Sanofi had sued Merck for patent infringement...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that inducement of infringement can be shown based on encouragement and inferred intent of infringing use from a drug label. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC v. Watson Labs....more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, WALLACH, and TARANTO. Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: (1) A party may not avoid inducement based on “substantial non-infringing uses,” and (2) prosecution history...more
On August 8, Sanofi-Aventis filed a complaint for patent infringement against Merck Sharp & Dohme in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey regarding Merck’s proposed follow-on biologics of Sanofi-Aventis’s...more
On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a judgment on whether Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding effect being...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Janssen Biotech Inc. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00679; filed August 3, 2015 in the District Court of...more
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
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
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Galderma Laboratories LP et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc USA 3:15-cv-01416; filed May 6, 2015 in the Northern District...more
Andrews, J. The court previously entered a Markman opinion on January 20, 2015. Declarations by experts were submitted on January 16, 2015 and an evidentiary hearing took place on January 23, 2015 regarding how a POSA would...more