Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
5 Key Takeaways | Hot Topics in Biopharma
Business Better Podcast Episode: Accelerating Life Sciences: How Accelerators and Education Are Joining Forces to Catapult the Life Sciences Industry
Is Your Life Sciences Patent Enabled? The U.S. Supreme Court Is Considering That Question
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments on CAR T-Cell Therapy Patent Dispute
NGE On Demand: COVID-19 and IP Waiver for Patent Protection with Kevin O'Connor and Olivia Luk Bedi
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Dr. Claire Fraser
Enforcing IP in a Pandemic: Considerations, Risks, Strategies
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 1
Verdict in T-Cell Immunotherapy IP Case Tests 'Reasonable Royalty' Concept for Large Damage Awards
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: FDA Regulatory and Patent Implications of the Transition Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Patent law in Europe: What pharmaceutical companies need to know
A data-driven era: Why digital tools are critical to life sciences players
IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
Numerous court decisions over the past decade – such as Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi from the US Supreme Court and Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – have called...more
While the genus antibody claim was effectively killed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi, it lives on in Europe despite a few recent setbacks at the European Patent Office ("EPO") and the Unified Patent Court...more
In 2023, a lawsuit that had wound its way through the judicial system for nearly 10 years finally had its day in the U.S. Supreme Court – and made waves in the biotechnology, chemical and pharmaceutical communities. Our...more
The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more
On January 10, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for assessing enablement in view of Amgen v. Sanofi and other recent court cases (“the Guidelines”). The Guidelines state that they are not intended to “announce any major...more
On January 9, 2024, the USPTO published guidelines for its patent examiners when evaluating compliance with the enablement requirement in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et...more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued "Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v....more
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Guidelines, applicable to any technology, for ascertaining compliance with the enablement requirement in view of the U.S. Supreme Court...more
In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (Amgen) sent shock waves through the patent world, particularly in the chemical and biotech segments, due to its invalidation of Amgen patents based on a...more
On January 10th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a Notice in the Federal Register (89 Fed. Reg. 1563) regarding proposed Guidance on how the Office will apply the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)...more
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) (Amgen), in which the Court addressed whether Amgen’s functional antibody genus claims satisfy the enablement requirement, the U.S....more
In Baxalta, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding from the District of Delaware (Judge Timothy B. Dyk) that claims 1-4, 19 and 20 of Baxalta’s patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another set of antibody genus claims, finding the case “materially indistinguishable” from those in the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States case, Amgen v....more
With only two precedential IP decisions coming down from the Federal Circuit in the second half of September, pickings were a little slim for blogging. That said, the opinion in Baxalta v. Genentech (2022-1461) — drafted by...more
In the aftermath of Amgen v. Sanofi, courts continue to invalidate genus claims for lacking enablement. Baxalta Incorporated v. Genentech Inc.2 shows that it is nearly impossible to meet the enablement requirement for claims...more
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...more
There has been, since the turn of the century, a steady, seemingly inexorable trend towards limiting patent rights and focusing the application of U.S. patent law towards an emphasis on preventing innovators from obtaining...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant CAFC decision making it more...more
The decision concerns the time of filing and admissibility of a revocation action at the Central Division when a parallel infringement action is filed at a local division (Art. 33(4) UPCA). Art 33(4) UPCA states that...more
Patent offices may reject a patent application with claims reciting using a composition to treat a disease, based on the requirement that the claimed treatment is not fully supported by the application. In the U.S., such...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court held claims of two patents owned by Amgen, Inc. to be invalid for failing to enable persons skilled in the art to practice the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. §112. Amgen, Inc., et al....more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down broad patent claims covering a “genus” of antibodies, reaffirming in a 9-0 decision that a patent must “enable” the full scope of its claims (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi). Amgen, Inc.,...more
Some chemical innovators have found the recent Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi to suggest that chemical inventions will be subject to new and draconian disclosure standards going forward. A few have even suggested...more