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 MoreOn May 3, 2018, Nike ($NKE) sued Puma for patent infringement. Nike’s principle gripe is that Puma ripped off its groundbreaking “knitwear” sneaker as well as its tech for Air and cleats. Nike’s lawsuit touches three large product segments, and Puma faces considerable exposure if Nike prevails. That exposure is increased based upon Nike’s request for potentially triple damages, lost profits and an injunction. Is this the start of the sneaker patent wars?
Read MoreOn April 30, the Federal Circuit convened oral argument in the highly-watched patent case between UC and Broad over the interference proceeding covering patents for CRISPR-Cas9. (An overview of the case and the respective arguments were published in an earlier post.) The hotly-contested argument suggests the Court is leaning towards Broad, but raises deeper questions about whether this is a success or failure for the patent system.
Read MoreThe epic CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute has reached the Federal Circuit. UC previously lost its bid to the Patent Office to eviscerate Broad’s patents through an interference proceeding. That decision is now on appeal. The briefing at the Federal Circuit is complete, and oral argument is scheduled for April 30, 2018. Who will win at the Federal Circuit—UC or Broad?
Read MoreOn April 17, 2018, a new patent issued to Corcept Therapeutics ($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 MoreOur 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 $502M damages currently stand invalid pursuant to petitions for inter pares re-examination and inter partes review. But what about Oil States? The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, and it addresses the constitutionality of petitions for inter partes review (IPR). The case has already heard oral argument, and a decision is expected imminently. Some commentators have suggested that if the Supreme Court holds IPRs unconstitutional, then that will vacate the invalidity decisions of VirnetX’s patents from the PTAB, and nothing will finally stand in the way of VirnetX’s damages. What are the considerations that may keep alive VirnetX's prospect of collecting damages?
Read MoreOne of the hottest smartphone patent battles still raging is the one between China's Huawei and South Korea's Samsung. A true patent world war, with cases filed in Huawei's hometown of Szenzhen and good old Northern District of California, alleging various violations of 3G and 4G standard-essential patents owned by both companies, breach of contract claims relating to a failure to follow the FRAND licensing regime, and requests for injunctions aplenty. First blood went to Huawei, with a victory in the Szenzhen trial court (appeal pending) resulting in the issuance of an injunction, which, if enforced, could result in a shutdown of Samsung's formidable China-based smartphone manufacturing capacity -- bad news for any prospective buyers of the Galaxy S9 for example. Seeking immediate help from the ostensibly friendlier US-based court, Samsung moved for an antisuit injunction to stop Huawei from enforcing the injunction Huawei earned in China. Now that Samsung's motion was granted, it is a good time to consider 3 immediate takeaways from this important decision.
Read MoreIn a slightly new wrinkle in Celgene’s recent Revlimid® saga, Celgene ($CELG) has commenced another suit against Dr. Reddy’s ($RDY). (This is the third patent lawsuit connected to Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic for Revlimid®.) In the most recent suit, Celgene asserts five new patents (the ‘720, ‘977, ‘784, ‘866 and ‘531). The suit was commenced on April 13, 2018 in the federal court in New Jersey, where the other Revlimid® suits are currently pending. What’s this suit all about?
Read MoreVirnetX ($VHC) has won another trial against Apple ($APPL) in the federal court in Texas. This time the verdict is approximately $502M. But the patents stand invalid based upon PTO decisions, and those decisions are pending before the Federal Circuit. Who's winning this battle?
Read MoreIP decisions don't get bigger than the one handed down by the Federal Circuit yesterday in the long-running dispute between Oracle and Google over Google's use of Java code in developing Android. The case will continue -- with a damages trial at a time TBD, once the appeals of this appeals court decision are exhausted -- and will continue garnering significant interest from IP lawyers, software companies, and investors. Nothing like the prospect of a multi-billion dollar damages award to attract eyeballs. Now that Google's key defense -- fair use -- has been rejected by the CAFC, it is a good time to consider 3 immediate takeaways from this important decision.
Read MoreYesterday, we blogged about why the Markman hearing was cancelled in Celgene’s Revlimid® patent case against Dr. Reddy’s. Some analysts suggested that this is a positive indication of a settlement approaching with Dr. Reddy’s and possibly with all generics. We weigh in.
Read MoreOn March 23, Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s informed the Court that they jointly have resolved the single pending claim construction dispute—namely, the construction of the word “crystalline” within the two asserted polymorph patents. What does this mean for the case?
Read MoreNovartis has filed a patent lawsuit against Regeneron seeking damages for sales of Eylea® and Zaltrap®. On March 19, 2018, Novartis sued Regeneron in the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, for infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,688,688. The ‘688 patent claims gene expression constructs for the expression of polypeptides in mammalian cells. How strong is Novartis’ case, and what is Regeneron’s exposure?
Read MoreA case currently pending before the Supreme Court, WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., may make it easier for U.S. businesses to fight IP theft abroad.
Read MoreRegeneron ($REGN) and Sanofi released positive topline results from their ODYSSEY clinical trial Praluent®. In addition was the announcement that prices for Praluent® may be cut. Investors who may have grown skeptical with the new PCSK9-inhibitor class may now be interested again, which may include the pending patent lawsuit between Amgen ($AMGN) and Regeneron. What is happening in the case?
Read MoreThe PTAB has denied institution of two IPRs filed by Coherus Biosciences against patents covering Enbrel®’s proteins, the ‘182 and ‘522 patents. The IPRs were not filed by Sandoz, but they will most likely affect Sandoz. Sandoz already has FDA approval to market Erelzi®, which is its biosimilar for Enbrel®. And Sandoz is going to trial against Amgen in April. How do Coherus IPR decisions affect Sandoz's decision to launch at risk? Or to settle with Amgen?
Read MoreFDA’s Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said today that a “rigged” system between drug firms and insurers is stifling entry for less-expensive biosimilars. Gottlieb stated that certain payment arrangements “raise another, perhaps even more insidious barrier to biosimilars taking root in the U.S., and gaining appropriate market share.” Is J&J’s exclusionary contract scheme to discourage competition with Pfizer’s biosimilar for Remicade® a poster child for what Gottlieb is lamenting? Pfizer recently sued Janssen over that very question, and the federal court is scheduled to decide a motion answering that question very shortly.
Read MoreWith BlackBerry's new mega-patent case against Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, the company's long-awaited transformation into a serious patent assertion entity is undoubtedly complete. Even a simple perusal of BlackBerry's complaint reveals that the company has thrown significant resources at the case in the hopes of securing a windfall licensing fee from Facebook. At the same time, it is also clear that Facebook has rebuffed BlackBerry's pre-litigation attempts to license the patents. Considering that the case is likely much more material to BlackBerry investors than to Facebook holders, below are three critical questions that BlackBerry investors should be asking as they evaluate this new development.
Read MoreCorcept Therapeutics recently received a Paragraph IV notice letter from Teva for its drug, Korlym®. The market’s reaction crushed the stock, sending it from approximately $23 to roughly $17 within a day. Corcept Therapeutics has essentially one drug, Korlym® (mifepristone). But whether Teva will enter with a generic version of Korlym® any time soon depends directly on the patents that Corcept has in its arsenal. What are those patents? Is the market’s reaction justified? Or is this a buying opportunity?
Read MoreCloudflare recently prevailed on its motion to invalidate patents as ineligible in a case commenced by Blackbird Tech. But Cloudflare’s win may be in jeopardy. Two recent decisions from the Federal Circuit have held that winning on early Alice motions, like the one on which Cloudflare prevailed, will now be more difficult.
Read More