The US Supreme Court last month (June 12, 2017) in Sandoz v. Amgen ruled unanimously in favor of generic that biosimilar companies will not have to wait an additional six months after FDA approval to launch their product. The case concern a biologic product filgrastim marketed by Amgen as Neupogen since 1991 and claims to hold patents on methods of […]
The Supreme Court of the United States in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, et al. dated March 21, 2017, has held that the equitable defense of laches is no longer a valid defense to patent damages claims brought within the six-year damages limitation period of 35 U.S.C. § 286. Section 286 “Except as otherwise […]
By judgement and order dated Mar. 08 2017, a single judge of the Delhi High court interpreted the Bolar provision in India (section 107 A). Whether the language of section 107 A of the Patent Act, 1970 permits exports from India of the patented invention, even if solely for uses reasonable related to the development and submission of information required […]
On October 20, 2016 federal court in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. addressed the effect of the supreme court decision in Cuozzo Speed, on the issue of whether termination of instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings based on a failure to meet the statutory filing requirements for a petition would be barred from review by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) [under Cuozzo […]
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of United States issued its first decision addressing IPR proceedings—Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The court’s decision upheld the claim construction standard (“broadest reasonable interpretation” BRI rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard applicable in courts) applied in IPR proceedings and confirmed that appeals may only be taken from the board’s final written decisions […]
UCB has received a major boost after a Delaware district court confirmed the validity of the company’s patents on one of its major drugs, the anti-seizure drug Vimpat (lacosamide). The case relates to ANDA litigation and involves patent number RE38551 (OB Listed). The court agreed with plaintiffs general characterization of the record: Vimpat® is the result of Dr. Kohn’s decade long […]
The Federal Circuit on Aug 1, 2016, upheld a district court’s summary judgment against Electric in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). This case involves the eligibility for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, of certain claims of three of Electric Power Group, LLC’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7233843, 8060259, and 8401710. Electric’s claims […]
Recent trends in disputes over patent validity in USPTO proceedings and in federal courts have raised concerns about the overall validity of patents issued by USPTO. Some observers, citing the extent to which the validity of granted patents has been successfully challenged, believe that USPTO examiners do not always identify the most relevant prior art, which has resulted in granting […]
Data from the Indian Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks shows that a total of 1, 45,060 patents were filed between 2013 and 20 July 2016. Of this, Indian citizens or organizations account for 39,318 while the number is 1, 05,742 for foreign nationals and organisations. Of the 12,442 applications filed in 2016-17, 3,248 are Indian applicants and […]
On May 12, 2016 the USPTO issued a Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps on patent eligibility in view of recent court decisions. (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and TLI Communications LLC v. A. V Automotive, LLC) These decisions and the memo will be informative on how the courts and the USPTO determine the subject matter eligibility, and may bring some clarity regarding the eligibility […]