The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. is a cautionary tale that failure to present evidence of damages closely tied to each alternative basis of liability may result in a hollow...more
In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard for determining whether a patent claim meets the definiteness requirement...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), filing an Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA)—like filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)— can be an act of patent infringement resulting in ‘artificial’ injury to a patentee....more
10/5/2015
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
aBLA ,
Biologics ,
BPCIA ,
Consent ,
DaimlerAG ,
DaimlerChrysler v Bauman ,
General Jurisdiction ,
Interlocutory Appeals ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
SCOTUS ,
Specific Jurisdiction
An emerging issue in Hatch-Waxman litigation – and potentially under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) – is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.746 (2014), on...more
Protective orders preventing litigation counsel from participating in the prosecution of litigation-related patents are commonplace. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), for example, provides a...more