Markman Advisors
Patent Valuation, Monetization and Investments

Blog

Markman Advisors Patent Blog

Korlym®: Can Corcept defeat Teva’s motion to dismiss?

Earlier this year, Teva ($TEVA) filed an ANDA to distribute a generic version of Korlym®, and soon thereafter, Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) commenced a Hatch-Waxman patent suit in federal court in New Jersey.  On June 15, 2018, Teva moved to dismiss the case.  What is this motion all about? And will Teva’s motion prevail?

Read More
Apple Enlists Alice in Qualcomm Battle...

As investors (should) know, the current worldwide patent war between Qualcomm and Apple is perhaps the most important set of ongoing patent litigation there is. As Bloomberg notes in a overview article of the dispute, the stakes are high. Apple faces the possibility of injunctive relief against, most importantly in its key manufacturing site and second-most important sales market, China. For its part, Qualcomm needs to recover billions in lost revenue from Apple (up to $4.5bn, according to some estimates) while maintaining the industry perception that Qualcomm's vast patent portfolio is indispensable and of inordinate value.

Read More
Markman Advisors
Takeaways from the Tribe’s Oral Argument at the Federal Circuit: St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan

On June 4, 2018, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Allergan’s effort to assert tribal immunity at the PTAB to shut down six IPRs against its Restasis® patents.  The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has appealed the PTAB’s prior decision that it cannot assert its immunity as a basis to terminate the IPRs.  While there was no clear indication for how the three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit would rule, there were some interesting exchanges revealing how the Court views these types of transactions, and how viable they may be in the future.

Read More
Startups want a strong patent system—they just don’t know it yet.

This week’s edition of The Economist addresses an interesting spin on the prospects of budding Silicon Valley startups living under the shadow of Big Tech.  The fantasy of getting bought is being supplanted by the reality of getting taken out.  The Economist argues that startups now live within a kill zone maintained by Big Tech—either sell out on our terms, or we’ll co-opt your technology and launch our own product.  While antitrust may be one solution to give more leverage to innovators, what about patents?

Read More
Can Kite Pharma reverse its IPR loss challenging Juno’s CAR-T patent?

On June 5, 2018, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument on Kite Pharma’s ($GILD) appeal of its IPR loss related to Sloan-Kettering’s and Juno Therapeutic’s ($CELG) CAR-T patent.  What issues will it be important to listen for in the panel’s questions?

Read More
Why is Amgen doubling-down on its psoriasis patents in the Enbrel® patent case against Sandoz?

The much-anticipated trial in the biosimilar litigation over Enbrel® has been pushed from April, to June and now to September.  Although Amgen ($AMGN) has asserted five patents against Sandoz’s ($NVS) proposed biosimilar, Erelzi®, the focus of the case are the two Roche patents directed to the entanercept protein itself.  And yet, a skirmish has erupted related to one of the three other patents, which collectively cover indications for using entanercept to treat psoriasis indications.

Read More
Nike sues Puma, and the sneaker patent wars begin?

On May 3, 2018, Nike ($NKE) sued Puma for patent infringement.  Nike’s principle gripe is that Puma ripped off its groundbreaking “knitwear” sneaker as well as its tech for Air and cleats.  Nike’s lawsuit touches three large product segments, and Puma faces considerable exposure if Nike prevails.  That exposure is increased based upon Nike’s request for potentially triple damages, lost profits and an injunction.  Is this the start of the sneaker patent wars?

Read More
CRISPR-Cas9: After oral argument, Broad likely to prevail—but is it failure of the patent system?

On April 30, the Federal Circuit convened oral argument in the highly-watched patent case between UC and Broad over the interference proceeding covering patents for CRISPR-Cas9.  (An overview of the case and the respective arguments were published in an earlier post.)  The hotly-contested argument suggests the Court is leaning towards Broad, but raises deeper questions about whether this is a success or failure for the patent system.

Read More
Who will win the CRISPR-Cas9 appeal at the Federal Circuit?

The epic CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute has reached the Federal Circuit.  UC previously lost its bid to the Patent Office to eviscerate Broad’s patents through an interference proceeding.  That decision is now on appeal.  The briefing at the Federal Circuit is complete, and oral argument is scheduled for April 30, 2018.  Who will win at the Federal Circuit—UC or Broad? 

Read More
Will Corcept Therapeutics’s new patent for Korlym® help against Teva’s generic?

On April 17, 2018, a new patent issued to Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) that covers Korlym®.  The patent is U.S. Patent No. 9,943,526 pursuant to U.S. Patent Application No. 15/133,791.  The ‘526 patent has already been added to the Orange Book.  Korlym® was already protected by two patents listed in the Orange Book, and Corcept recently commenced a Hatch-Waxman litigation against Teva asserting these two patents.  How effective is the new ‘526 patent at keeping Teva at bay?

Read More
How will Oil States impact VirnetX? Will VirnetX's damages be increased to $1.5B?

Our earlier post on VirnetX’s recent $502M jury verdict commended the company and its counsel on an incredible win, but nevertheless pointed out that it might be for naught.  The patents asserted in the trial for the $502M damages currently stand invalid pursuant to petitions for inter pares re-examination and inter partes review.  But what about Oil States?  The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, and it addresses the constitutionality of petitions for inter partes review (IPR).  The case has already heard oral argument, and a decision is expected imminently.  Some commentators have suggested that if the Supreme Court holds IPRs unconstitutional, then that will vacate the invalidity decisions of VirnetX’s patents from the PTAB, and nothing will finally stand in the way of VirnetX’s damages.  What are the considerations that may keep alive VirnetX's prospect of collecting damages?

Read More
3 Takeaways from Samsung's Big Antisuit Injunction Win Against Huawei...

One of the hottest smartphone patent battles still raging is the one between China's Huawei and South Korea's Samsung. A true patent world war, with cases filed in Huawei's hometown of Szenzhen and good old Northern District of California, alleging various violations of 3G and 4G standard-essential patents owned by both companies, breach of contract claims relating to a failure to follow the FRAND licensing regime, and requests for injunctions aplenty. First blood went to Huawei, with a victory in the Szenzhen trial court (appeal pending) resulting in the issuance of an injunction, which, if enforced, could result in a shutdown of Samsung's formidable China-based smartphone manufacturing capacity -- bad news for any prospective buyers of the Galaxy S9 for example. Seeking immediate help from the ostensibly friendlier US-based court, Samsung moved for an antisuit injunction to stop Huawei from enforcing the injunction Huawei earned in China. Now that Samsung's motion was granted, it is a good time to consider 3 immediate takeaways from this important decision.

Read More
Markman Advisors
How important is Celgene’s latest Revlimid® suit against Dr. Reddy’s over REMS patents?

In a slightly new wrinkle in Celgene’s recent Revlimid® saga, Celgene ($CELG) has commenced another suit against Dr. Reddy’s ($RDY).  (This is the third patent lawsuit connected to Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic for Revlimid®.)  In the most recent suit, Celgene asserts five new patents (the ‘720, ‘977, ‘784, ‘866 and ‘531).  The suit was commenced on April 13, 2018 in the federal court in New Jersey, where the other Revlimid® suits are currently pending.  What’s this suit all about?

Read More
3 Takeaways from Oracle's Big Win in the Federal Circuit over Google...

IP decisions don't get bigger than the one handed down by the Federal Circuit yesterday in the long-running dispute between Oracle and Google over Google's use of Java code in developing Android. The case will continue -- with a damages trial at a time TBD, once the appeals of this appeals court decision are exhausted -- and will continue garnering significant interest from IP lawyers, software companies, and investors. Nothing like the prospect of a multi-billion dollar damages award to attract eyeballs. Now that Google's key defense -- fair use -- has been rejected by the CAFC, it is a good time to consider 3 immediate takeaways from this important decision.

Read More
Why was the Markman hearing cancelled in Celgene’s Revlimid® patent case against Dr. Reddy’s?

On March 23, Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s informed the Court that they jointly have resolved the single pending claim construction dispute—namely, the construction of the word “crystalline” within the two asserted polymorph patents.  What does this mean for the case?

Read More
What is Regeneron’s exposure from Novartis’ patent case against blockbuster Eylea®?

Novartis has filed a patent lawsuit against Regeneron seeking damages for sales of Eylea® and Zaltrap®.  On March 19, 2018, Novartis sued Regeneron in the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, for infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,688,688.  The ‘688 patent claims gene expression constructs for the expression of polypeptides in mammalian cells.  How strong is Novartis’ case, and what is Regeneron’s exposure?

Read More