Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 51

Osteoporosis patents found invalid

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
April 15 2013

Two osteoporosis treatment patents have been found to be invalid following the ruling by the High Court of England and Wales in Hospira UK Ltd & Anor

Federal Circuit affirms injunction against Impax labs and bars generic introduction

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
March 29 2013

Analyzing an injunction preventing a generic pharma house from introducing a new generic drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Supreme Court hears oral argument in pay-for-delay patent settlement antitrust case

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
March 26 2013

The Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., will almost certainly have major implications for the viability of Federal

Generics challenge to Crestor patent fails

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
January 31 2013

In a case involving multiple defendants seeking to sell generic versions of the drug rosuvastatin calcium, currently marketed as Crestor, the U

Diagnostic claims for assessing the risk of Down’s Syndrome are not patent eligible

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
December 27 2012

Following the Prometheus and Myriad decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that diagnostic claims that were directed to the use

Causal nexus for P.I. means the accused infringement drives consumer demand

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
November 29 2012

Addressing the requirement of a “causal nexus” relating the alleged harm to the alleged infringement for a preliminary injunction, the U.S

Is it time to take a new look at appellate review of PTO claim construction?

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
November 29 2012

Addressing again the issue of whether to construe a claim term according to 35 U.S.C. 112, 6 when that term does not include the magic “means for” language, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) construction of the term “height adjustment mechanism,” concluding the term was not a means plus function (MF) claim element

Thou shall describe a reason for negative claim limitations

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
October 31 2012

In addressing a written description issue relating to the adequacy of support in the specification for including a “negative limitation” in the claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a standard requiring the specification to describe a reason for the negative limitation

The scope of safe harbor provision under 271(e)(1) expands

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
September 28 2012

Addressing the scope of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that practicing a patented method in the commercial manufacture of a drug was not an act of infringement

District court power to enjoin improper use code is limited

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
August 30 2012

Addressing for the first time the role of a district court to remedy an improper use code submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a federal court’s powers are limited to enjoining an improper use code and that the party is “given the opportunity to propose the specific language of the use code.”

next >

Search results

Osteoporosis patents found invalid

Federal Circuit affirms injunction against Impax labs and bars generic introduction

Supreme Court hears oral argument in pay-for-delay patent settlement antitrust case

Generics challenge to Crestor patent fails

Diagnostic claims for assessing the risk of Down’s Syndrome are not patent eligible

Causal nexus for P.I. means the accused infringement drives consumer demand

Is it time to take a new look at appellate review of PTO claim construction?

Thou shall describe a reason for negative claim limitations

The scope of safe harbor provision under 271(e)(1) expands

District court power to enjoin improper use code is limited

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea