Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 33

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

SCOTUS hears arguments on patentability of human genes

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
April 18 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments on Monday specifically addressing whether "human genes are patentable." Ass'n for Molecular Pathology

Court dismisses action to correct inventorship of two patents

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
May 19 2011

A federal court in Massachusetts has determined that genetic researchers could neither substitute themselves as the inventors of two patents nor correct the patents' inventorship to add their names under 35 U.S.C. 256, because they had not engaged in any collaborative efforts with the named inventors

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

Federal Circuit’s patent infringement ruling conflicts with USPTO re-examination on validity

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
November 1 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for an en banc rehearing by a medical-device patent holder which argued that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Board of Patent Appeals had effectively nullified a previous Federal Circuit decision on the validity of its patent

Biotech company settles claims that counsel divulged confidential information

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
April 21 2011

A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice claims that a biotech company filed against its former counsel alleging that the law firm had provided confidential information about the company's patent applications to another client

Federal Ccircuit panel returns to Gore-Tex graft dispute, clarifies willfulness standard for enhanced damages

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
June 21 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated parts of its February 2012 decision in a long-running patent dispute over a prosthetic vascular graft and remanded the matter for the district court to address the objective prong of the willfulness standard and reconsider its denial of W.L. Gore’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc., No. 2010-1510 (Fed. Cir., decided June 14, 2012

Argument on remand scheduled in Myriad Genetics

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
May 17 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled briefing and oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Myriad Genetics), which the U.S. Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court’s ruling in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012

U.S. Supreme Court says new evidence allowed in Section 145 proceeding

Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
-
USA
-
April 19 2012

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., ruling that methods for determining an optimal drug dosage to treat certain autoimmune diseases were not patent eligible, a federal court in the District of Columbia similarly found that claims for “Systems, Methods and Computer Program Products for Guiding the Selection of Therapeutic Treatment Regimens” are patent-ineligible

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

next >

Current Search

Jurisdiction - USA
Workarea - Litigation
Workarea - Healthcare
Workarea - Patents
Firm Name - Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP