Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
As part of the Hatch-Waxman Act, given the lack of information on the allegedly infringing product, courts have found that patentees can satisfy the pleading requirements of Twombly/Iqbal without having access to the accused...more
Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical SC, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022) - The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent decision this week comes on appeal from a district court decision...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. [OPINION] (2020-2087, 5/5/21) (Dyk, Bryson, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Affirming decision to set aside judgment and injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions: In Re NITRO FLUIDS L.L.C. [ORDER] (2020-0142, 10/28/28) (REYNA, WALLACH, and CHEN) - Reyna, J. The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking transfer from the...more
As we previously reported, on February 11, 2020, Amgen sued Pfizer and its affiliate Hospira, alleging that their proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s NEULASTA (pegfilgrastim) would infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,273,707 (“the ’707...more
On December 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that fully upheld the District of Delaware’s denial of Hospira, Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or alternative motion...more
We previously reported on discovery disputes in the adalimumab litigation between AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) pending before the District of Delaware. Earlier this month, Judge Lloret issued an order on additional...more
In an update on the Amgen v. Coherus appeal regarding Coherus’s biosimilar application for pegfilgrastim, Amgen filed its opening brief on August 20. Amgen’s statement of the issues are...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided whether tribal sovereign immunity required termination of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). At the PTAB, Mylan...more
The US District Court for the District of New Jersey awarded Luitpold more than $210,000 in fees and costs under 35 USC § 285 after granting its motion for judgment on the pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (ANDA Update,...more
As we previously reported, on September 22, 2017, a Delaware federal jury awarded Amgen $70 million in damages after finding that Hospira infringed one of Amgen’s Epogen® (EPO) patents (the ’298 patent). Five days later,...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Amgen could not obtain discovery related to activities that might infringe a patent that it had not asserted in its biosimilar patent litigation against Hospira....more
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a number of current IP topics, including a look at the America Invents Act, five years in; the U.S. International Trade...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more
Recently, the Supreme Court changed the standard of review the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing district court claim construction decisions in patent cases. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the standard of review of factual findings by the trial court in construing patent claims. The Court ruled that factual findings in the context of...more
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided a narrow but important issue of appellate jurisdiction in cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Case No. 13-854), which changed the level of deference the Federal Circuit must show to district court claim...more
On Jan. 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision setting forth a new standard for appellate review of a district court’s claim construction ruling. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op., 574...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court revised the standard of review used by the Federal Circuit for nearly twenty years in reviewing claim construction rulings, replacing a de novo standard...more
This week, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must apply a deferential “clear error” standard of review to any finding of fact underlying a district court’s...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S.__ (2015), holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error" standard when...more