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 83

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


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


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


ERISA preemption on the run San Francisco's health ordinance
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2008

This month the ability of employers to rely on ERISA preemption to implement a uniform health program was again called into question


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


Myriad questions with but two answers: isolated DNA is patentable subject matter but certain diagnostic method claims are patent
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2011

In reversing the summary judgment of the Southern District of New York, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held today in an opinion by Judge Lourie that claims to isolated DNA and claims for methods of screening potential cancer therapeutics were directed to patentable subject matter


NLRB sets a heightened standard for employers challenging narrow bargaining units
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • September 21 2011

When a union petitions the National Labor Relations Board to be certified as the bargaining representative for a group of employees, it identifies the group or "bargaining unit" that it seeks to represent


Nondiscrimination rules delayed for insured health plans
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • January 1 2011

The Affordable Care Act imposes, for the first time, nondiscrimination rules on non-grandfathered, insured group health plans similar to those that apply to self-insured plans under Section 105(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code


Method of treatment claims alive and well
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • December 20 2010

On December 17, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Prometheus v. Mayo sustaining the patentability of Prometheus’s medical treatment claims


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?