Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 321: Listen and Learn -- Intervention, Impleader, and Class Action Lawsuits (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 153: Listen and Learn -- More Types of Joinder (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn -- Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 72: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Civil Procedure
Collaborating Before The PTAB
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
September 21, 2019 was the second anniversary of the coming into force of the amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations) heralding significant changes to the landscape for pharmaceutical...more
The Federal Court has granted in part Pharmascience’s motion to strike out portions of Teva’s statement of claim under subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) relating...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) vacated its institution decision and terminated an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) based on Mylan’s prior counterclaim seeking a...more
Federal Circuit Determines Time-Barred Petitioner Joined to an IPR Has Appellate Standing - In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech., Appeal Nos. 2017-2088, -2089, -2091, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
In the February 1, 2019 decision of Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3282, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 405682, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision (FWD) holding claims of U.S....more
In Friday’s decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc., No. 17-2088 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that a time-barred petitioner that is joined into a case has an...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party joined to an inter partes review has the right to appeal the Board’s final written decision...more
Samsung Bioepis has filed three petitions for IPR challenging Genentech patents related to the use of Herceptin® (trastuzumab): IPR2017-01958, challenging U.S. Patent 6,627,196; IPR2017-01959 challenging U.S. Patent...more
Merck Sharp & Dohme filed two petitions for inter partes review of Genentech’s U.S. Patent 6,331,415, one of the “Cabilly Patent,” which claims processes and materials broadly applicable to recombinant antibody manufacturing....more
It has been four years since the first inter partes review proceedings were filed in the United States. The first IPR petition, filed on September 16, 2012 (the first day IPRs became available), made it all the way to the...more
The Modafinil decision bodes well for defendants and represents another step toward increased scrutiny of the class action device in the Third Circuit. On September 13, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for...more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each week we will report on recent developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH - PTAB Petition: IPR2016-01665;...more
We have reviewed a sub-group of 111 IPRs filed by generic drug companies against pharmaceutical patents to assess outcomes and trends. While our survey was not intended to capture every IPR filed by a generic drug company, it...more
When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become...more
The Medical Device Manufacturers Association (“MDMA”) has been vocal in lobbying Capitol Hill for what they consider “necessary changes” to patent law for continuing medical device innovation. Part of that lobbying has...more