Markman Advisors
Patent Valuation, Monetization and Investments

Blog

Markman Advisors Patent Blog

Posts tagged Zachary Silbersher
Can Sentaor Rubio really block Huawei from pursuing patent infringement against Verizon?

It’s rare that patents make the mainstream news, and even more rare that one company’s allegation of patent infringement touches—even remotely—on issues of national security.  Yet, that appears to be happening with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed legislation to block Huawei from seeking relief for infringement of its granted U.S. patents.  There isn’t really much precedent for legislating that a certain set of patents are unenforceable.  Can this really happen?

Read More
Another reason drug prices are too high: drug companies can patent an FDA mandate.

High drug prices remain in the news.  A recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit shows that certain drug prices will stay high if drug companies can simply take a mandate from the FDA, which was not their idea, and file a patent on it, thereby cornering the market on all IP around that mandate.  The case is Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, LLC, Case No. 2018-1054 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2019).

Read More
Will Amgen win another injunction against Regeneron’s Praluent?

Amgen ($AMGN) is about to square off once again against Regeneron ($REGN) and Sanofi over whether Praluent® should be pulled from the market.  Having prevailed at another jury trial earlier this year showing that Amgen’s PCSK9 protein patents are both valid and infringed, Amgen has renewed its bid for a court order enjoining Praluent® from the market.  The injunction hearing is scheduled for June 2019.  Over two years ago, Amgen prevailed after an earlier injunction hearing where the court ordered Praluent® to be barred from the market.  Will Amgen be able to prevail again? 

Read More
Will patents save the unicorns? No, they won’t.

This is the year of the unicorns.  Or maybe just the year of unicorns going public.  Firms including Lyft, Uber, AirBnB, WeWork and Pinterest either have, will or are contemplating going public.  Last week, The Economist published an interesting briefing on unicorns.  The primary thesis is that they are overvalued.  At heart, their users are not faithful, and barriers to entry won’t stop competitors from encroaching on their base.  Yet, for all the reasons unicorns try to downplay this concern, there’s no mention of patents and IP as a line of defense.  Why not?

Read More
Federal Circuit clarifies patent-eligibility for diagnostic method patents: Endo v. Teva and Natural Alternatives v. Creative Compounds.

The Federal Circuit has recently issued two precedential decisions that clarify when method-of-use and diagnostic patents are directed to eligible subject matter rather than natural laws.  Some clear guidelines are solidifying that should make enforcement of these principally pharmaceutical-type patents easier to handicap.

Read More
The lesson from Theranos is that investors do not know how to read a patent.

Theranos’ patents may have assured investors that the company was a good bet, but that does not mean those patents were a failure of the patent system.  Rather, the patents illustrate a deficiency of IP literacy.  Investors—and recent commentators still—have taken the patents to mean something they are not.  Indeed, the patents—and the file histories behind them—have been public for years. Those patents and file histories revealed many red flags that were apparently ignored. 

Read More
Is Novartis’ S1P modulator titration patent a “roadblock” to Celgene’s ozanimod?

While Bristol Myers ($BMY) proposed acquisition of Celgene’s ($CELG) remains in question by activists questioning Revlimid®’s pending patent cliff, a new patent angle emerges.  A Credit Suisse analyst recently identified a patent owned by Novartis ($NVS) that could purportedly act as a “roadblock” to Celgene’s MS drug ozanimod.  Is this true?

Read More
Does the Lotus IPR matter to Celgene’s Revlimid or the Bristol transaction?

We previously blogged about Dr. Reddy’s IPRs filed against MDS patents covering Celgene’s Revlimid®.  Those IPRs attracted considerable attention because they were, for better or worse, one of the few data-points within the Revlimid® patent skirmishes we are guaranteed to see before the Bristol transaction closes.  The Lotus IPR attacking one of Celgene’s multiple myeloma patent is another datapoint.  The PTAB’s decision on whether to institute the IPR is due March 18.  How much does Lotus IPR really matter?

Read More
Does UC’s new CRISPR-Cas9 patent really cover eukaryotes?

In the latest episode in the long-running CRISPR-Cas9 patent battle between the University of California and Broad, UC has obtained a new patent related CRISPR-Cas9.  UC has touted this patent, as well as another expected to issue shortly, as “useful to locate and edit genes in any setting, including within plant, animal, and human cells.”  So, did UC just win patents covering CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotes?  How does this square with the patent interference that UC recently lost at the Federal Circuit on this very issue?

Read More
AbbVie still can’t escape Boehringer’s claim that its Humira patent-thicket was wrongful.

The Court in AbbVie’s patent fight over Humira with Boehringer Ingelheim said that it “seems clear enough” that AbbVie had a patenting program designed to mitigate biosimilar entry for Humira®.  Though AbbVie clearly danced around ways to avoid producing much of its behind-the-scenes strategizing for building a patent estate sizeable enough to practically coerce settlements, the Court has ordered AbbVie to pull up its skirt.

Read More
Three milestones to watch for in 2019 that could impact generic entry for Celgene’s Revlimid.

Since announcing the pending acquisition of Celgene ($CELG) by Bristol Myers ($BMY), investors have focused upon the patent-cases involving Revlimid®.  There are multiple cases and petitions for inter partes review (IPRs) at various stages of resolution.  The key question among investors is whether there will be any key milestones in those cases--especially during 2019 before the Bristol acquisition closes—that will clarify exactly when any of the pending generics will enter.  In this post, we identify three potential milestones to watch for from the Revlimid® patent landscape in 2019. 

Read More
District of Delaware Makes it Harder to Corner the Market on Antibody Patents in MorphoSys v. Janssen

See our post in IPWatchdog. “The case is important to the growing body of patents covering biologic drugs because it delineates more precisely when functionally-claimed antibody patents can survive enablement and written description challenges.”

Read More
For Amgen’s PCSK9 patent case, is there any read-through from Court’s summary judgment order to the trial?

On January 18, the District Court in Delaware issued an opinion resolving multiple summary judgment motions filed by both parties.  The key takeaway from that decision is that the case is now teed-up for trial beginning on February 19. But the Court didi highlight some key issues likely to be the focus of the trial.

Read More
Did Corcept and Teva tell the Court they are about to settle the Korlym patent dispute?

On January 10, counsel for Corcept ($CORT) filed a letter with the Court in the pending patent litigation against Teva ($TEVA) over its proposed generic for Korlym®.  (See Dkt. 49).  Within that letter, Corcept requested an extension of one week to respond to Teva’s Answer to the Amended Complaint.  Corcept’s letter further stated that the “parties are currently discussing a potential agreement that would eliminate the need for Corcept to respond to Teva’s Answer . . . .”  Is that potential “agreement” a resolution to the litigation?

Read More
Will Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s settle the Revlimid dispute now that Bristol Myers is at the table?

Celgene ($CELG) has announced plans to be acquired by Bristol Meyers Squibb ($BMY).  A settlement conference is scheduled in the Hatch-Waxman patent case between Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s on January 10, 2019.  Now that Bristol Meyers is at the table, will the parties be able to reach a settlement that couldn’t be reached before?

Read More
Does Alice require fact questions or not? The Federal Circuit appears split.

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions that were predicted to stem the tide of early dismissals based upon Alice motions.  The cases were  Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software, and there were both deemed precedential by the Federal Circuit.  A recent concurrence at the Federal Circuit, however, shows that the Court may be splitting over the rationale underpinning Berkheimer and Aatrix, and that split may be heading for the Supreme Court. 

Read More
The Federal Circuit sends a message about attorneys’ fees in Spineology v. Wright Medical

A recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit sheds important light on how the Court views attorneys fees in patent cases.

Read More
Does Moderna Therapeutics’ pipeline depend upon its patent dispute with Arbutus Biopharma over mRNA delivery?

Moderna is currently embroiled in an intellectual-property dispute that may be material to its long-term profits, regardless of which of the products in its pipeline eventually succeed.  At least one company, Arbutus Biopharma, has already claimed that Moderna’s tech uses its mRNA delivery technology.  Two pending patent disputes may decide whether Arbutus’ patents are a roadblock to Moderna’s revenue.

Read More
Is Boehringer Ingelheim planning to launch its Humira biosimilar at-risk?

Boehringer Ingelheim has been one of the lone holdouts in AbbVie’s ($ABBV) campaign to delay biosimilar competition against Humira® until 2023.  To date, AbbVie has settled with almost all proposed biosimilars for entry dates in 2023.  Is Boehringer going to launch at-risk?

Read More
What do the Court’s December 4 rulings mean for MorphoSys' Darzalex patent case?

Earlier this week, we blogged about the series of pending summary judgment motions in MorphoSys’ ($MOR) lawsuit accusing Janssen’s ($JNJ) Darzalex® of infringing its patents.  The Court heard oral argument on December 3.  The transcript of that hearing is not currently publicly available.  The Court, however, did issue oral rulings at the end of the hearing that hit the docket on December 4.  What do the rulings mean?

Read More