We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 46

Australian court finds human gene mutation to be patentable

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • Australia, USA
  • -
  • September 11 2014

A full panel of the Federal Court of Australia has upheld its earlier ruling that an isolated but naturally occurring nucleic acid, BRCA1, can be

New infringement lawsuit filed to protect BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 26 2014

Myriad Genetics has brought a new infringement lawsuit against a company offering a next-generation sequencing test that analyzes the BRCA1 and BRCA2

Federal Circuit says certain human genes may be patented

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2011

In a ruling likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that genetic discoveries may, to a certain extent, be patented

Myriad Genetics brings new BRCA1BRCA2 infringement suits

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 12 2013

Myriad Genetics now reportedly has six pending infringement lawsuits involving its BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents, with Invitae Corp. and Laboratory Corp

Fractured Myriad Genetics ruling follows SCOTUS remand

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 30 2012

Ruling that one plaintiff had standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to the patent eligibility of certain genetic discoveries, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has once again reversed in part and affirmed in part a lower court’s determination that isolated DNA molecules and methods of comparing molecules to determine whether a patient’s genes have mutations that could cause breast and ovarian cancer were not patent eligible

Genetic technologies settles infringement suit over non-DNA coding technology

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 2 2013

Genetic Technologies Ltd. (GTG) has reportedly settled a patent infringement lawsuit filed in late 2012 against PreventionGenetics. While the terms

Federal court upholds FTC rules on reporting certain pharma patent transfers

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2014

Granting the agency's motion for summary judgment, a federal court in the District of Columbia has upheld the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's

Parties to gene patent dispute change course by seeking U.S. Supreme Court review

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 20 2011

After filing petitions for rehearing before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel that split over whether genetic discoveries can be patented, the parties have apparently changed course and indicated their intent to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review

Federal Courts of Appeals conflict over validity of pay-for-delay deals

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 2 2012

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in mid-July that found “any payment from a patent holder to a generic patent challenger who agrees to delay entry into the market must be treated by a factfinder as prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade,” thus supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) view that pay-for-delay deals that settle patent disputes between name-brand pharmaceutical companies and their generic drug competitors violate antitrust law

Eleventh Circuit turns aside FTC challenge to pay-for-delay deal

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2012

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an antitrust action filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against a name-brand prescription drug manufacturer (the patent holder) and generic drug companies that entered into pay-for-delay agreements to settle patent infringement claims filed against the generic drug companies