California Employment News: Pay Transparency Coming to California
Employment Law Now VI-121 - Top 5 Fall Things You Need To Know
California's New COVID-19 Sick Leave Mandate: What Employers Need to Know
FLSA and Wage and Hour Issues for Restaurants
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part Two
NGE OnDemand: The Importance of Timely Reporting Occurrences, Claims and Suits to Insurers with Paul Walker-Bright
#WorkforceWednesday: DOL Electronic Notices Guidance, EEO-1 Reporting Delayed, CA COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave - Employment Law This Week®
Advancing Agriculture: Security Interests and Article 9 Challenges (Part 2)
#WorkforceWednesday: Sick Leave in New York, California Law Update, and Oregon’s Workplace Fairness Act Takes Effect
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
COBRA: Avoid Getting Snakebit! (Notice Update, Deadline Update, Litigation Update)
Cutting Costs With Employee Benefit Plans (Part 5 of 5) – Implementation
Butler's Thursday Tips #7 | Civil Remedy Notices
The Blunt Truth About Testing Employees For Marijuana In California (part one)
#BigIdeas2020: Facial Recognition Technology and Employer Compliance - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
CF on Cyber: Key Takeaways from the California AG’s Proposed CCPA Regulations
Contractual Notice Requirements: Do You Really Need Them?
Report: Chinese Military Now Hacking American Businesses
Safeguards against Data Security Breaches (Part One)
FTC Hits Path with $800k Fine, Continues to Make Mobile Privacy a Priority
In Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, the Federal Circuit held corporate officers and employees who actively assist with their corporation’s infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement even without any piercing...more
The Federal Circuit in Lubby Holdings v. Chung overturned a jury verdict finding that Lubby satisfied Sec. 287(a)’s requirement to notify Chung of his infringement. Was this reversible error, or has the court determined that...more
The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed civil trials across the country. This includes patent cases, which are often complex and must be filed in federal court. Arbitration offers a possible alternative venue. While arbitration is...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) obstacles to successful motions to amend have been daunting. As published previously, filing motions to amend have historically been an exercise in futility due to their low chance...more
On April 8, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) released a decision finding that the Federal Court Notice to the Profession re: Experimental Testing (Notice) does not apply to pre-litigation testing: Apotex v Bayer, 2020...more
This week, in Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that patented articles must be marked in order for the patentee to recover pre-notification or pre-complaint damages. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1080 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addresses issues relating to the...more
The patent marking statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) appears straightforward: Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing...more
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was passed as part of health reform signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This year, the BPCIA turns 10. While the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway has...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
FCA overturns cefaclor damages decision on prejudgment interest issue, provides guidance on NIA defence - On November 23, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) allowed in part Apotex’s appeal of a decision awarding Eli...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) In an appeal of an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed for the first time the...more
On Monday, June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that manufacturers making biosimilars of biologic drugs did not have to wait until after gaining federal approval of the biosimilar to...more
In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Sandoz v. Amgen, interpreting key provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) in favor of biosimilar manufacturers...more
The Supreme Court could issue its decision in the Amgen v. Sandoz biosimilar patent dance case any day now. Last week I participated in a panel discussion with industry stakeholders considering how the decision might–or might...more
We previously reported on the oral argument in Sandoz v. Amgen. Justice Thomas has delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Sandoz v. Amgen. Briefly, the Supreme Court held that notice of commercial...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794. F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Sandoz v. Amgen, 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014), appealed from the Federal Circuit. The petitions involve the...more
Since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was signed into law in 2010, only a small handful of abbreviated Biologics Licensing Applications (“aBLAs”) have been filed and of those the FDA has...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit described the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma" in the Amgen v. Sandoz case. Nevertheless, one of the provisions of...more
The Federal Circuit's July 5, 2016 opinion in Amgen v. Apotex is already being picked up and analyzed in other BPCIA litigation: in Amgen v. Hospira, Hospira has submitted the Federal Circuit’s opinion to the District Court...more