Markman Advisors
Patent Valuation, Monetization and Investments

Blog

Markman Advisors Patent Blog

Posts tagged patent
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
What are the lessons from Boehringer’s settlement with AbbVie over its Humira biosimilar?

And just like that, it’s over.  Boehringer Ingelheim has thrown in the towel in its patent fight with AbbVie over Boehringer’s proposed biosimliar for Humira®.  Boehringer was a lone hold-out among a long line of proposed biosimilars for AbbVie’s blockbuster.  Boehringer’s distinction was that it had raised a unique defense, namely, arguing that AbbVie had built an unfair “patent thicket” around Humira® that was unenforceable.  We previously blogged about Boehringer’s “unclean hands” defense here and here and here.  Now that Boehringer has settled, what are the larger lessons for future biosimilar patent fights?

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
What happens when a district court and the PTAB disagree over the validity of a patent?

In a recent district court decision from the District of Delaware, the court granted a preliminary injunction, and ordered the defendant to pull the accused products, even though, a few months earlier, a Final Written Decision by the PTAB in an inter partes review proceeding held all asserted claims of the patent-in-suit unpatentable.  What was the court’s reasoning?  And what are the implications?

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
Are polymorph patents necessarily obvious? A recent CAFC decision may read-through to Revlimid’s polymorph patents.

The Federal Circuit has issued a precedential decision addressing whether a patent covering a given polymorph was invalid as obvious, Grunenthal GmbH v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.  Though the Court explained that it was not establishing a categorical rule that polymorph patents can never be obvious, the case nonetheless provides important guidelines for when a polymorph patents are likely to be invalid.  For those following Revlimid®’s patent cases, the immediate question is—does the Grunenthal case have read-through to Celgene’s polymorph patents? 

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
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
Does Uniqure or Spark Therapeutics own the key patents covering FIX-Padua for hemophilia B?

Uniqure ($QURE) and Spark Therapeutics ($ONCE) are squaring off over who will soon provide the best haemophilia B gene therapy.  Meanwhile, the companies have acknowledged that intellectual property issues may be critical to which drug will come out on top.  Will the patent issues cloud either drug’s commercial performance?

Read More
What to make of Dr. Reddy’s IPR losses for Celgene’s Revlimid patent cases?

Last week, we wrote about milestones to watch for in Celgene’s ($CELG) Revlimid® patent landscape in 2019 that could potentially impact the Bristol Myers ($BMY) transaction.  One data-point that investors were anticipating were institution decisions in three petitions for inter partes review (IPRs) filed by Dr. Reddy’s.  This week, the PTAB denied institution of all three IPRs.  How will those decisions read-through to the overall Revlimid® patent landscape?

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
MorphoSys loses its Darzalex patent case against J&J—what happens next?

Morphosys’ ($MOR) patent trial against Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab was headed for trial in February.  In advance of that trial, however, the parties traded numerous summary judgment motions.  On January 26, Genmab announced that the District Court granted its motion to invalidate the asserted patents.  What happens next?

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