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 50

EU Court of Justice Advocate General issues ruling on Stem Cell patentability

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 7 2014

In a non-binding ruling, Advocate General Cruz Villalón of the EU Court of Justice has determined that unfertilized human ova whose division

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

Ambry Genetics countersues Myriad Genetics in genetic patent infringement suit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2013

Responding to the patent infringement claims asserted against it by Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics Corp. denies that the 15 patents at issue were

Federal Circuit reverses Patent Appeals Board on obviousness ruling and commercial success evidence

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 13 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences incorrectly rejected on obviousness grounds a patent claim involving physical and air shields to prevent the clogging of a nozzle to a Wurster coater, which sprays coating material onto pharmaceutical ingredients

Court finds no standing for Consumer Watchdog in stem cell patent appeal

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2014

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected not-for-profit Consumer Watchdog's appeal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO's

New infringement lawsuit filed to protect BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 26 2014

Myriad Genetics has brought a new infringement lawsuit against a company offering a next-generation sequencing test that analyzes the BRCA1 and BRCA2

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

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