Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
Innovating with AI: Ensuring You Own Your Inventions
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
Appellate courts issued a variety of notable intellectual property (IP) cases in 2024, including cases touching on Orange Book listings, extraterritoriality, willful infringement, design patent obviousness, and public...more
Synopsis: In a recently issued final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.11,572,334 (“the ’334 patent”) unpatentable.1 The Board’s decision centered...more
On January 10, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., reversing a lower court decision that claims of a Novartis patent...more
Patent owners generally look to secondary indicia to bolster their nonobvious defenses when prior art and/or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) seem to make the obviousness decision a close call. This...more
Case Name: Purdue Pharma L.P v. Accord Healthcare Inc., Civ. No. 22-913-WCB, 2024 WL 4120717 (D. Del. Sept 9, 2024) (Bryson, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: OxyContin® (oxycodone HCl); U.S. Patent No. 11,304,908 (“the...more
In Allergan USA, Inc. et al., v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision relating to obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) and...more
Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more
Among the most established standards in patent law is that obviousness requires a motivation to combine the prior art with “a reasonable expectation of success.” The Federal Circuit alone has employed the “reasonable...more
On December 27, 2023, Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted a motion for preliminary injunction by Natera Inc. enjoining NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. from...more
The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held on summary judgment that a patent with 2,295 days of combined patent term adjustment (PTA) and patent term extension (PTE) was not invalid for obviousness-type...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms., Inc., No. 20-8966 (SRC), 2022 WL 17959811 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Vyvanse® (1-lysine-d-amphetamine dimesylate); U.S....more
Case Name: Arius Two, Inc. v. Alvogen PB Rsch. & Dev. LLC, No. 2022-1394, 2022 WL 17828352 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2022) (Circuit Judges Chen, Clevenger, and Cunningham presiding; Opinion by Chen, J.) (Appeal from D. Del.,...more
Case Name: Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 20-5212 (KM)(ESK) (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (McNulty, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: QuilliChew ER® (methylphenidate); U.S. Patents Nos. 9,545,399 (“the...more
ACI’s 8th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium returns in person to Chicago on September 21-22! Join leading pharmaceutical patent litigators for brand name and generic drug companies to receive up-to-the-minute...more
In the weeks preceding a recent Hatch-Waxman bench trial, a district court excluded portions of an expert’s opinion on obviousness that addressed internal documents and inventor testimony concerning the “inventors’ path” to...more
Case Name: Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-2106, 25 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) (Circuit Judges Newman, Prost, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Dissenting Opinion by...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-734, 2021 WL 5323737 (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate); U.S. Patent No....more
Case Name: AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 2021-1729, 2021 WL 5816742 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (Circuit Judges Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.; Opinion dissenting in part by Taranto, J.)...more
Biogen International GMBH, Biogen MA, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. marks the Federal Circuit’s most recent interpretation of the 35 U.S.C. § 112 written description requirement in the Hatch-Waxman context. No....more
Case Name: Auxilium Pharms., Inc. v. FCB I LLC, Civ. No. 20-16456, 2021 WL 2802537 (D.N.J. July 6, 2021) (Vazquez, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Testim® (testosterone gel); U.S. Patents Nos. 7,320,968 (“the ’968...more
Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more
BECAUSE THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT OVERLAPPING PH RANGES AND STRUCTURALLY SIMILAR COMPOUNDS AS THOSE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT-IN-SUIT, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS. Case Name: Valeant Pharms...more