I have blogged about the Amgen v. Sanofi case several times, and the case has been summarized in my prior posts andelsewhere. The case pitted two competing PCSK9-inhibitors against one another, and after several years, resulted in cancelling broad patents covering the new class of antibodies. Whenever there is any case that cancels patents within the pharmaceutical or biotech space, the common knee-jerk retort from some commentators is that the decision will suppress innovation, chill R&D and discourage any investment in life-saving medicine. In this case, the opposite is true.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court has denied the recent bid to fix Alice and Section 101 jurisprudence. In two cases that each petitioned for certiorari, Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc. and Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electric Oy, the Federal Circuit affirmed district court decisions holding the asserted patents directed to ineligible subject matter. The Supreme Court’s denial is particularly acute since the Solicitor General recommended that cert be granted. And it is more painful given that this denial follows another recent instance where the Solicitor General also recommended that the Supreme Court take up Alice. Once again, the patent community mourns another lost chance to clear up the mess that has become Alice. But let’s face it—will the Supreme Court ever save us from Alice? . . . The answer is, probably not.
Read MoreThere is the distinct possibility that Section 101 is finally returning to the Supreme Court. In American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 20-891, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General for the views of the United States on the pending petition for certiorari. In response, Solicitor General recommended granting the petition, at least with respect to one of the questions. The SG’s brief underscores the consensus that Alice has spawned more uncertainty than predictability.
Read MoreIn a precedential decision that issued on May 19, ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court’s recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest. recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest.
Read MoreThe United States Supreme Court has issued its ruling in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP. The case is either surprising or unsurprising given your palette for the changing nature of patent rights. But one thing is certain—the stripping of appellate review for institution decisions deprives litigants of valuable jurisprudence that would otherwise make the IPR process more predictable and more efficient.
Read MoreA recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit sheds important light on how the Court views attorneys fees in patent cases.
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 MoreSince the first BPCIA cases hit the courts a few years ago, the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have slowly been entangling the knots and confusions around the complicated regulatory scheme. Innovator companies and biosimilars have wrangled over the “patent dance” and the 180-days notice of commercial marketing, including what’s required, what’s not, and who can leverage a regulatory tactical advantage. A case between Amgen and Sandoz has helped resolve many of these issues, and this week, the Federal Circuit took another step towards gutting the statute. What are the take-aways?
Read More