8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more
3/27/2024
/ Article III ,
AstraZeneca ,
Biotechnology ,
Damages ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Royalties ,
Settlement Agreements
The Federal Circuit's decision on claim construction, Barrday, Inc. v. Lincoln Fabrics, Inc., 2023-1903, 2023 WL 7871688 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2023), takes a dizzy dive into the age-old question of when a claim should be...more
The Federal Circuit's claim construction gospel set forth in Phillips has been entrenched in the minds of patent litigators for nearly 20 years.1 The intrinsic evidence - the claims, specification, and prosecution history -...more
On August 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed an IPR Final Written Decision holding claims to deuterated derivatives of ruxolitinib unpatentable as obvious and rejected the patentee’s argument that a skilled artisan would...more
In the first decision to issue following the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, locking in the Federal Circuit’s second panel decision (hereafter “GSK v. Teva”), which held that Teva’s attempted...more
5/16/2023
/ Denial of Certiorari ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
GlaxoSmithKline ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals ,
Teva Pharms USA Inc v GlaxoSmithKline LLC