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

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


Indian Supreme Court rules Novartis cancer drug change not patentable
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • India
  • April 4 2013

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the patent application filed by Novartis AG for a beta crystalline form of its cancer drug Gleevec, also


Exhaustion doctrine applied to method patent
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 21 2013

A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that a method patent holder that gave away 60 percent of the blood-glucose testing


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


Control at issue in split Federal Circuit ruling on joint infringement
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 21 2011

A divided Federal Circuit Court of Appeals panel, relying on recent precedent, has confirmed that "where the actions of multiple parties combine to perform every step of a claimed method, the claim is directly infringed only if one party exercises 'control or direction' over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party."


Federal Circuit reverses Patent Appeals Board on obviousness ruling and commercial success evidence
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2011

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences incorrectly rejected on obviousness grounds a patent claim involving physical and air shields to prevent the clogging of a nozzle to a Wurster coater, which sprays coating material onto pharmaceutical ingredients


EU Court of Justice Advocate General issues ruling on Stem Cell patentability
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • August 7 2014

In a non-binding ruling, Advocate General Cruz Villalón of the EU Court of Justice has determined that unfertilized human ova whose division


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


Myriad Genetics sues diagnostics company over BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 11 2013

Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that naturally occurring human genes are not patent eligible and thus found certain Myriad


Ambry Genetics countersues Myriad Genetics in genetic patent infringement suit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 15 2013

Responding to the patent infringement claims asserted against it by Myriad Genetics, Ambry Genetics Corp. denies that the 15 patents at issue were