New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
Intellectual Property In Department of Defense Contracting
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
On September 2, 2021, the parties in the Amgen v. Hospira (D. Del., No. 18-1064) Neupogen®/filgrastim litigation submitted a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss all claims and counterclaims in the litigation, with...more
As we previously reported, Judge Connolly of the District of Delaware stayed the dispute between Amgen and Hospira last month, pending a determination on whether the Court should entertain summary judgment practice on the...more
On June 16, 2021, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued a claim construction order construing a key term in the ongoing patent dispute between Amgen and Hospira over Hospira’s proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has denied Amgen’s motion to consolidate a recently filed action against Pfizer and its affiliate Hospira relating to Hospira’s filgrastim biosimilar with an ongoing...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
The Federal Circuit has declined to reconsider its December 2019 affirmance of the district court ruling in the Amgen v. Hospira (epoetin alfa) dispute. As we have previously reported, that ruling upheld a jury verdict...more
In December, in Amgen v. Hospira, 944 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019), a panel of the Federal Circuit issued the first decision applying the statutory Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to BPCIA patent litigation. ...more
Recently, in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the limits of the Safe Harbor defense in cases involving patented manufacturing methods....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health in Motion LLC, Appeal No. 2018-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a fee award against prevailing...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
Following last month’s dismissal of the Amgen v. Kashiv filgrastim biosimilar litigation, yesterday Amgen and Tanvex filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in their BPCIA litigation concerning Tanvex’s filgrastim biosimilar...more
The Federal Circuit has grappled with, divisively in some instances, the extent to which the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) extend to activities not strictly for obtaining regulatory approval, such as...more
On December 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in a rituximab-related appeal by Biogen. The appeal stems from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review...more
Here are some recent developments in U.S. legal proceedings relating to biosimilars: On December 10, 2018, in the Southern District of Florida, Apotex filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement complaint that Amgen...more
Early last month, we reported that in the Amgen v. Hospira BPCIA litigation concerning Hospira’s Retacrit™ (epoetin alfa) biosimilar, Hospira had filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the Delaware district court’s final...more
A recent case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware demonstrates how nuanced safe harbor protection under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) "non-infringement" can be for a pharmaceutical company developing a biosimilar...more
As we previously reported, last September a District of Delaware jury issued a verdict that Hospira’s manufacture of 14 batches of drug substance in connection with its proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s Epogen® (epoetin alfa)...more
More than a dozen BPCIA patent litigations are currently pending in various U.S. district courts. Below are some highlights of activity in some of those cases from this month....more
As we previously reported, Amgen and Hospira both filed motions asking the Court to partially set aside the jury verdict in the Amgen v. Hospira litigation. In its motion, Hospira had asked the Court to set aside the jury...more
Below is our fall update on the U.S. patent litigations concerning proposed or approved biosimilar products. For additional details, please consult our BPCIA Litigation Summary Chart or our previous quarterly updates (Summer...more
Further to our update yesterday on the Amgen v. Hospira litigation, the parties in the case filed several additional motions yesterday. Following its filing of a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of...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
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
We reported earlier this week that the district court in Amgen v. Hospira denied Hospira’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of its proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit® (epoetin alfa) and granted-in-part and...more
With the September 18, 2017 trial date fast approaching, the district court in Amgen v. Hospira last week denied Hospira’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of its proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit®...more