This ruling will therefore frustrate Apple’s efforts to put Qualcomm’s general licensing practices on trial, leaving the jury to focus on the particulars of Qualcomm’s demands of Apple. For its part, Qualcomm and its investors will be pleased that the company will not have to fight a distracting rearguard action in defense of its licensing history before the jury. The decision may be a short one, but the impact on each side’s trial presentation is significant.
Read MoreLast 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 MoreThe 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 MoreSince 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 MoreAh, Qualcomm v. Apple. Always giving us something to talk about. In the latest news, the PTAB rendered its institution decisions on two Apple challenges to a patent Qualcomm had acquired from Palm, and asserted against Apple in Qualcomm’s first patent salvo back in late November of 2017. Since everyone knows that this Qualcomm-Apple battle is a cage match, it should be no surprise that Apple filed two IPRs against the same patent. Smart choice, considering that Apple won institution on one IPR, and lost the second.
Read MoreSee 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 MoreMorphosys’ ($MOR) patent trial against Janssen ($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 MoreOn 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 MoreOn 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 MoreSophisticated defendants like Apple have three chances (jury, judge, appeals court) to “win” on damages, or to at least allow the litigation process to set the appropriate settlement range for any patent claim. It is a gauntlet for a patent owner to run, but it also confirms that any patent valuation that is not conducted through a litigation lens is likely as worthless as a big-ticket jury verdict based on erroneous expert testimony.
Read MoreCelgene ($CELG) has announced plans to be acquired by Bristol Meyers Squibb ($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 MoreEarlier 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 MoreNo longer should patent owners assume that the only pain of losing an IPR is seeing their patent cancelled. If there is a pending companion case in court, the likelihood that a losing IPR effort could lead to a larger award of attorney’s fees must also be taken into account. Put another way, the chances of a patent owner feeling double the pain because of an IPR filing have just gone up.
Read MoreThe competitive threat to wholesaler/retailers like Williams-Sonoma by Amazon’s approach is real; we can therefore expect more companies like Williams-Sonoma to take action with respect to enforcing their IP rights against Amazon’s encroachment.
Read MoreA recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit sheds important light on how the Court views attorneys fees in patent cases.
Read MoreWhile Bumble has since counter-sued on its own trade secret claim, there is no doubt that the Tinder patent lawsuit remains a overhang on the company’s plans to raise outside capital.
Read MoreModerna 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 MoreBoehringer Ingelheim has been one of the lone holdouts in AbbVie’s ($ABBV) campaign to delay biosimilar competition against Humira® until 2023. To date, AbbVie has settled with almost all proposed biosimilars for entry dates in 2023. Is Boehringer going to launch at-risk?
Read MoreEarlier this week, we blogged about the series of pending summary judgment motions in MorphoSys’ ($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 MoreThe Darzalex® patent case commenced by MorphoSys against Janssen is headed towards trial. Before that, however, the parties recently filed a series of summary judgment motions, and on December 3, 2018, the Court heard oral argument. Will the Court moot the trial by granting Janssen’s motions to invalidate the patents?
Read More