For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property
On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal…
more
/ Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Life Sciences is an area ripe for trade secrets misappropriation litigation. In recent news, Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC filed a lawsuit under the North Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets Act alleging that its former director of…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18, 2023 delivered its decision on the scope of the patent enablement requirement, set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, in the antibody dispute Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi. While the parties obtained finality,…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Health, Intellectual Property
In Sawstop Holding LLC v. Vidal the Federal Circuit confirmed what many practitioners suspected— the Patent and Trademark Office will only award a patent term adjustment to offset a delay caused by appellate review of a patent…
more
/ Intellectual Property
The answer? Not much, in itself. If one patent is good, 132 is probably fine too. That was Judge Easterbrook’s reasoning in a recent decision addressing indirect purchasers’ antitrust challenge to AbbVie’s so-called “patent…
more
/ Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Intellectual Property
BridgeBio’s recently announced sale of an FDA Priority Review Voucher for $110 million reflects a robust secondary market for these regulatory fast passes. Prices for Priority Review Voucher (“PRVs”) reflect the high stakes…
more
/ Administrative Law, Science, Computers, & Technology
In three previous blog posts, we have discussed recent inventorship issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and its implications for life sciences innovations – focusing specifically on scientist Stephen Thaler’s…
more
/ Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Patent claim limitations that are “negative”—that is, claim limitations specifying the absence of a particular element from the patent claim—can pose a dilemma in the written description context. How much of the specification…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
After years of contemplation and delays, Europe’s Unified Patent Court will be operational in about one year. U.S.-based Life Sciences patent applicants should start preparing now to ensure that their applications withstand…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
In one of the first district court opinions applying the Federal Circuit’s recent GSK decision on induced infringement in the context of label carve-outs, Judge Richard Andrews in the District of Delaware held that plaintiff…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues surrounding…
more
/ Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
In the United States, the scale of trade secret theft is estimated to be between $180 billion and $450 billion annually. Among the targets of this theft are pharmaceutical companies, which are some of the most research-intensive…
more
/ Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
In Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, the Federal Circuit grappled with the issue of whether claims directed to methods and systems for inactivating bacteria using blue light were obvious in view of a prior art…
more
/ Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
The recently reversed jury verdict and billion-dollar judgment in favor of Juno Therapeutics on the grounds that the asserted claims did not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Juno Therapeutics,…
more
/ Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
