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 3,861

July 2018: Where Are We Now With 340B?
  • Mintz Levin
  • USA
  • July 17 2018

It seems like every week, there are multiple new developments in the 340B program. While it has just been a few weeks since my last 340B blog post

PTAB Designates Five Decisions as Informative
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • July 11 2018

On July 10, 2018, the PTAB announced the designation the following five decisions as informative: Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case

FCC Nominee Cites Advancing Telemedicine Opportunities As Primary Focus
  • Arent Fox LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2018

Starks cited the advancement of telemedicine opportunities as one of his primary areas of focus if confirmed as an FCC commissioner. Starks’ testimony

ML Strategies Health Care Preview - June 25, 2018
  • Mintz Levin
  • USA
  • June 25 2018

This week, we turn our attention to the Senate following House passage of its opioid package known as H.R. 6. The House passed H.R. 6 by an

Chair Clayton’s Congressional Testimony
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • June 25 2018

In his most recent testimony in Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair once again focused on retail investors. Chair Clayton cited a

USTR Announces Section 301 Review Process for Additional Chinese Products
  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2018

As part of the Trump administration’s continuing efforts under Section 301 to pressure the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to change its intellectual

Institution Denied: No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Where Petitioner Relies on Incorrect Claim Construction
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • May 29 2018

The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May

Swearing Behind: Don’t Get Stuck in a Catch-22 of Corroboration
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • May 25 2018

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrump AS, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2018) (Moore, joined by Linn and Chen

Inventor’s Uncorroborated Testimony Not Sufficient to Swear Behind Reference
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • May 14 2018

Attempting to “swear behind” an alleged prior art reference has been common practice in IPRs, going back to the first IPR, Garmin Int’l, Inc. v

Patent enforcement through the courts in the USA
  • Paul Weiss
  • USA, Global
  • May 10 2018

A structured guide to enforcing patents through the courts in the USA