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 86

Anti-assignment provisions and providers
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • August 6 2015

Beginning last year, there has been a rash of court decisions giving ERISA participant andor beneficiary status to providers based on assignments


U.S. Supreme Court refines & limits antitrust state action defense
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2015

On February 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in North Carolina State Bd of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which held that a


Medical syringe company finds competitors’ mark a sticking point; pricks its ire
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • August 21 2012

In DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., No 2012-1050, 2012 WL 3292920 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board erred in failing to cancel two trademark registrations for medical syringes designed to be broken so they could not be reused


FTC v. Actavis
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2013

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued an opinion authored by Justice Breyer in FTC v. Actavis, holding that "reverse payment" settlements are


Preventive care court decision
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • November 19 2012

A federal judge in the District of Columbia circuit issued a stay from the contraceptive coverage mandate


Supreme Court decision to drop on Thursday
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2012

This morning the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the constitutionally of Arizona’s new immigration law


Dueling court cases issued on same day
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2014

On Tuesday morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that an IRS rule for a key piece of the 2010 Affordable Care


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


Drafting biotechnology process claims in light of Bilski
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • July 8 2010

Should biotechnology process claims be drafted differently in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos?


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