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

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

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

SCOTUS sides with FTC in reverse payment deals

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2013

A divided U.S. Supreme Court has determined that patent-infringement settlement agreements requiring the patentee to pay the claimed infringer

Mayo v. Prometheus laboratories argued before U.S. Supreme Court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 15 2011

With major industries weighing in as amici on the patentability of diagnostic medical tests, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a significant patent case on December 7, 2011

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

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

Control at issue in split Federal Circuit ruling on joint infringement

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 21 2011

A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel, relying on recent precedent, has confirmed that "where the actions of multiple parties combine to perform every step of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed only if one party exercises 'control or direction' over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party."

Federal Circuit confirms that generic ANDA applications did not infringe drug patents

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 16 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that when generic drug makers seek Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for uses of patented drugs not covered by the patents, the generics do not infringe the patents

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