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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 80

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

Indian Supreme Court rules Novartis cancer drug change not patentable

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • India
  • -
  • April 4 2013

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the patent application filed by Novartis AG for a beta crystalline form of its cancer drug Gleevec, also

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

Drug companies and policymakers watch patent dispute before India’s high court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • India
  • -
  • March 15 2012

According to a news source, the India Supreme Court will hear final arguments in March 2012 on whether the manufacturer of a drug that could not be patented in India because it was created before 1995 during a moratorium on the grant of patents to Western companies, may obtain a patent in that country for a newer form of the drug

Study shows rise in biotech patent litigation

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 20 2012

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has released its “2012 Patent Litigation Study,” which shows that the 4,105 patent lawsuits filed in 2011 marked a high point and a 22-percent increase from the previous year

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

Moody’s claims “the worst is over” for pharmaceutical companies facing patent cliff

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 3 2012

Moody’s Investor Services has reportedly revised its outlook for the global pharmaceutical industry and upgraded it to stable, apparently anticipating that earnings will rebound in 2013 with the slowdown in patent expirations, characterized by many industry observers as the “patent cliff.”

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