Allele v. Pfizer – The Basics. On April 23, 2021 Pfizer, Inc., BioNTechSE, and BioNTech US, Inc. (“Pfizer and BioNTech”) filed a joint reply supporting of their previously filed motion to dismiss a patent infringement...more
Case at a Glance: The Court will consider whether the text of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) imposes liability on those supplying from the United States components of a patented invention “in such a manner as to actively induce the...more
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 one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents...more
Claims Lacking Details Found to be Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central Division), Polar filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings contending that...more
On February 22, 2017, in reversing the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an essentially unanimous US Supreme Court ruled that the “supply of a single component of a multi-component invention for...more
In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court today reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp. involving the proper scope of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). This provision...more
The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the Federal Circuit’s ruling of infringement under 35 U.S § 271(f)(1) based on supplying from the United States a component of a patented invention. This case may...more
Today, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc changed direction again on § 271(a) direct infringement and ruled that Limelight was liable for direct infringement based on substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict of...more