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 42

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

Patentability of medical treatment claims to be heard by U.S. Supreme Court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that methods for determining the optimal dosage of thiopurine drugs used to treat gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101

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

CRS visiting scholar recommends that Congress clarify patentable subject matter doctrine

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 15 2012

In a Congressional Research Service paper titled “Mayo v. Prometheus: Implications for Patents, Biotechnology, and Personalized Medicine,” visiting scholar John Thomas considers how the U.S. Supreme Court ruling limiting the patentability of diagnostic methods that simply describe natural phenomena and relations may affect innovation and public health

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

Nature of nurture? Myriad decoded for non-biochemists

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2013

Gene patents became unstable with a clearly worded U.S. Supreme Court decision: "We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not

U.S. Supreme Court to consider just one question in Myriad Genetics

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 6 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the patentability of human genes and limited its grant of certiorari to the question “Are human genes patentable?”

Federal Circuit refuses to consider standingmootness issue in Myriad Genetics

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2012

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a non-precedential order declining Myriad Genetics’ invitation to revisit whether the plaintiff has standing, that is, a redressable legal interest in maintaining the lawsuit, and will thus consider, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, whether isolated DNA claims and method claims are patent-eligible under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012