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 53

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


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 court upholds glaucoma drug patents and enjoins generics
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 1 2011

A federal court in Texas has determined that four combination glaucoma drug patents held by Allergan Inc. were valid and that generic drug makers infringed the patents by seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to sell their generic versions under an abbreviated new drug application


Court denies Myriad’s request to enjoin sale of rival BRCA1BRCA2 tests
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 20 2014

A federal court in Utah has denied the request for a preliminary injunc- tion filed by Myriad Genetics against a rival company that offered tests


SCOTUS sides with FTC in reverse payment deals
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2013

A divided U.S. Supreme Court has determined that patent-infringement settlement agreements requiring the patentee to pay the claimed infringer


U.S. Supreme Court issues ruling on patentability of human genes
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that while human genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible, despite the effort required to


Australian court finds human gene mutation to be patentable
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • Australia, USA
  • September 11 2014

A full panel of the Federal Court of Australia has upheld its earlier ruling that an isolated but naturally occurring nucleic acid, BRCA1, can be


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


EU Court of Justice interprets law extending patent protection for medicinal products
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • European Union
  • December 15 2011

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has issued two rulings interpreting EU law at the request of British courts addressing whether drug makers can obtain a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), which extends patent protection, for products with active ingredients additional to those specified in the original patent


Fractured Myriad Genetics ruling follows SCOTUS remand
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 30 2012

Ruling that one plaintiff had standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to the patent eligibility of certain genetic discoveries, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has once again reversed in part and affirmed in part a lower court’s determination that isolated DNA molecules and methods of comparing molecules to determine whether a patient’s genes have mutations that could cause breast and ovarian cancer were not patent eligible