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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 41,098

Sanofi seeks IPR of Cabilly patent
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • July 30 2015

On July 27, 2015, Sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the “Cabilly II”


Louisiana federal district court ruling turns the duty to preserve evidence on its head
  • Dentons
  • USA
  • July 30 2015

In 2014, a Louisiana federal district court jury decided that two pharmaceutical companies should pay a staggering $9 billion in punitive damages (6


The PSQIAAmendment 7 debate in preparation for Charles
  • Roig Lawyers
  • USA
  • July 30 2015

In a storm of acronyms that has been brewing since 2005, the First District Court of Appeal is set to rule on the interaction of Florida's "Amendment


No deference by the Federal Circuit to lower courts’ claim construction findings
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing issues of claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reversed the decisions of two district courts


Fetal DNA test cannot give birth to a patent
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing the issue of patent eligibility of a pre-natal testing invention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed


Beginning of the end for Kyle Bass & Friends
  • Oblon
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Hours ago, Celgene filed its Motion for Sanctions against the Coalition for Affordable Drugs in IPR2015-01092, 1096, 1002, and 1103. The Patent Trial


Sanofi challenges two members of “Cabilly” family of patents
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

On July 27, 2015, Sanofi challenged two members of the well-known Cabilly family of patents. Sanofi (and Regeneron) filed both a petition for IPR


Third Circuit extends Actavis to reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of


Expert testimony not always a guarantee for appellate review with deference
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing the impact of expert testimony used during claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case remanded by the


Teva review standard controls lighting ballast on remand
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

In yet another post-Teva claim construction case (see discussion of Teva v. Sandoz, Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Kaneka Corp. v