What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Wolf Greenfield’s New Shareholders
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
Tonia Sayour in the Spotlight
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
Simbrinza® (brinzolamide / brimonidine) - Case Name: Alcon Inc. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., Civ. No. 22-1422-WCB, 2025 WL 457119 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2025) (Bryson, C.J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Simbrinza®...more
INOMax® (nitric oxide) - Case Name: Mallinckrodt Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC, Civ. No. 22-1648-RGA, 2025 WL 472557 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2025) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: INOMax® (nitric...more
Targeted protein degradation (TPD) is transforming drug discovery by leveraging the cell’s natural protein disposal systems to eliminate disease-causing proteins. Innovators are making rapid and successful advancements in the...more
This post is part of MoFo’s 2025 Intersection of AI and Life Sciences blog series. In this blog series, we explore how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing research, innovation, and patient care in the life sciences....more
Yondelis® (trabectedin) - Case Name: Janssen Prods., L.P. v. EVER Valinject GmbH, Civ. No. 24-7319, 2025 WL 639380 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2025) (Harjani, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Yondelis® (trabectedin); U.S....more
At ACI’s 23rd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents, you can expect informational overviews and thorough discussion of every facet of the industry. In a time of major legislative, regulatory, and judicial change, you can't...more
High-volume patent monetization entities have long focused on targets in the information technology and software sectors. But that trend is shifting....more
Yutrepia® (treprostinil inhalation powder) - Case Name: Liquidia Techs., Inc. v. FDA, No. 24-2428 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2025) (Kelly, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Yutrepia® (treprostinil inhalation powder) Nature of...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more
Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Formerly a niche venue for trade-related matters, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has emerged as a battleground for many high stakes intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology, life sciences,...more
In the landmark Amgen v. Sanofi case (previously covered here), the Supreme Court affirmed that patent claims drawn to a genus of monoclonal antibodies, which were claimed in terms of their function and the epitope to which...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was unpatentable due to obviousness-type double patenting. The court found...more
On April 3, 2025, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice GSK’s litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware....more
In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a Jepson claim unpatentable where the specification did not provide adequate written description for the portion of the claim purporting to recite what was already well...more
The UK government plans to turbocharge the life sciences sector using policy levers to enhance research and development, innovation hubs, and private fundraising. In this piece, Michael Bloch explores how refinements to...more
Welcome to the first issue of the BakerHostetler Life Sciences Newsletter! Within it you will find an overview of noteworthy developments in the life sciences space and at BakerHostetler. ...more
On March 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., No. 23-2254 (Fed. Cir. 2025) that clarifies how patent term extension (PTE) is calculated for reissue...more
On March 13, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Xencor, Inc. (the Xencor decision). The Xencor decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel...more
Attend ACI's 21st Annual Conference on Paragraph IV Disputes and join leaders from brand and generic pharmaceutical companies, renowned outside counsel, esteemed members of the judiciary, government, and academia to: -...more
IMMUNOGEN, INC. v. STEWART - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A solution to a problem can be obvious even when the problem itself was unknown in...more
IN RE: XENCOR, INC. Before Hughes, Stark, and Schroeder (sitting by designation). Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. To provide adequate written description for a Jepson claim,...more