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: 1-7 of 7

Separate written description? Oral arguments in en banc rehearing of Ariad v. Lilly

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 8 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on December 7 in its en banc rehearing of Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., Fed. Cir., No. 2008-1248

Federal Circuit's en banc decision delineates and defines a written description requirement

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2010

On March 22, the Federal Circuit issued its 9-2 en banc decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., affirming 112, 1 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement

Federal legislation to prohibit “reverse payment” agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers set for vote in the U.S. Senate

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2009

In recent developments that affect both brand name and generic drug manufacturers, both houses of Congress continue to debate legislation that, if passed as expected later this year, will make so-called generic "pay for delay" settlements presumptively unlawful

In re Kubin another hurdle for DNA sequence patents

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 7 2009

A typical scenario in the development of biotech patents claiming DNA sequences: a bench researcher discovers the isolation and characterization of a protein that may have desirable biological activity and publishes a paper describing the results

TTAB rules that fraud in less than all classes does not warrant cancellation of multi-class registration in toto

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2009

On January 29, 2009, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office answered a significant open question in the post-Medinol era, namely, whether a finding of fraud with regard to fewer than all International Classes in a multi-Class trademark registration requires cancellation of the entire registration or whether cancellation will be limited to all goodsservices in the Class in which fraud is found

Reversal based on obviousness potentially impacts patent rights of stem cell technology

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2010

In a decision potentially affecting the ability of biotechnology companies and research institutions to obtain and maintain patent rights concerning stem cell technology, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) recently rejected the claims of U.S. Patent Number 7,029,913 (the “‘913 Patent”) directed to human embryonic stem cell lines

Medical treatment and diagnostic claims are patentable

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 18 2009

The Federal Circuit has calmed some anxiety over the patentability of medical diagnostic methods under 35 U.S.C. 101 with its decision in Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, holding that some method of treatment and diagnostic methods are indeed patentable subject matter