Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (“422 patent”) – which relates to treatment of prostate cancer in humans by co-administration of abiraterone acetate (marketed by Janssen...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court found Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,661,422 (the 422 patent) invalid on the basis of obviousness and dismissed its actions against Apotex, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and...more
As previously reported, in the final decision released under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations), the Federal Court granted a prohibition order relating to Canadian Patent No....more
About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition: IPR2020-00480; filed January...more
As previously reported, the Federal Court granted Teva’s claim for compensation under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations relating to Teva’s bortezomib product (Janssen markets bortezomib as...more
On October 29, 2019, the Federal Court issued its final decision under the pre-amended Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations: Janssen Inc v Apotex Inc, 2019 FC 1355. Justice Phelan granted Janssen’s...more
This past April, the FDA approved Inflectra® (infliximab-dyyb), Celltrion and Hospira’s biosimilar of Janssen’s Remicade®. According to papers filed in the Federal Circuit this week, Celltrion and Hospira (collectively,...more
As we posted previously, the District Court in Janssen v. Celltrion has ruled that the ‘471 patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting on the two grounds raised in the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on...more
As we reported last week, the district court granted Celltrion’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for one of the two patents-at-issue in Janssen v. Celltrion. The Korea Times reports that Celltrion shipped its...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
In a complaint filed June 14, 2016, Janssen Biotech Inc. seeks a preliminary injunction that would bar Celltrion and Hospira from selling the biosimilar version of Remicade® (infliximab) that received FDA approval April 2016,...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Janssen Biotech Inc. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. 1:15-cv-00679; filed August 3, 2015 in the District Court of...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Mylan Pharma Acquisition Ltd. et al. v Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC 1:15-cv-06700; filed July 30, 2015 in the Northern District...more