For now, it is clear that these are just the opening salvos in what — absent settlement — is shaping up as a major patent war between two well-regarded names in the headphone/earbud space. Both Apple and Koss investors would do well to monitor developments in the two Apple/Koss cases, as well as any other cases involving Koss’ patents.
Read MoreIn the words of Lex Machina: “PTAB continued its trial flow in an effective, timely fashion. It has been reliable throughout this spring and summer, causing some parties to choose PTAB as a solution for stalled federal district court cases.” Put another way, the PTAB has risen to the Covid-19 challenge with aplomb. It is not a surprise, therefore, that the PTAB continues as a popular destination for patent disputes.
Read MoreTakeda responded by going nuclear. It sued Mylan for breach of contract and patent infringement, while also moving for a preliminary injunction to block Mylan’s sales. Takeda lost on the injunction, a decision just affirmed by the Federal Circuit. In doing so, the a split Federal Circuit panel rejected three Takeda arguments.
Read MoreWe previously blogged about Moderna Therapeutics’ ($MRNA) ongoing patent dispute with Arbutus Biopharma ($ABUS). On July 23, 2020, Arbutus prevailed in Moderna’s third IPR challenge to one of its patents, the ‘069 patent. Given that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate is currently one of the most promising, the question is, will Moderna’s vaccine infringe Arbutus’ patents?
Read MoreA number of companies have announced candidates for a COVID-19 vaccine, including Moderna Therapeutics ($MRNA), AstraZeneca ($AZN), Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) and Novovax ($NVAX). We looked into the existing landscape of patents that cover many of the existing candidates.
Read MoreA recent post on this blog by Gaston Kroub discussed the ongoing patent war between Sonos and Google. The war started when Sonos accused Google of stealing its technology and infringing its patents. Since then, the war has broadened to multiple fronts. In one interesting twist, Google commenced its suit against Sonos asserting its own patents. Gaston’s commentary provides some useful insights for why Google would do this from strategic perspective. But in this post, we raise another question: is Google a patent troll?
Read MoreAmarin’s appeal of the district court’s decision invalidating the Marine patents is now fully briefed. Amarin’s reply brief is strong, but does it tip the odds in favor of Amarin prevailing on the appeal?
Read MoreAt this point, it is safe to say that the battle lines are drawn. While the parties will likely continue to consider settlement and do everything they can to strengthen their positions for those discussions, investors in Sonos must stay abreast of the legal developments for as long as they last.
Read MoreHikma and Dr. Reddy’s have filed their appellate brief defending Judge Du’s decision invalidating the Marine patents. What does it say?
Read MoreWhen does a pile of sand become a heap? When is a portfolio of patents too many patents? Can using too many patents to compel generics to take a later entry date turn into monopolistic conduct? These questions lurk the heart of the antitrust litigation brought by buyers of the blockbuster drug, Humira®, against its manufacturer, AbbVie ($ABBV). The case is currently pending within the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-1873 (N.D. Ill.)). We previously blogged about related allegations before the case was filed when Boehringer Ingelheim raised them within its biosimilar litigation against AbbVie. On June 8, 2020, the Illinois federal court dismissed the antitrust action pursuant to AbbVie’s motion to dismiss. What are the takeaways from the case?
Read MoreOn June 4, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision holding that § 285 under the Patent Statute is inapplicable for awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a proceeding for inter partes review. The case is Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Almirall, LLC, Case No. 2020-1106 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2020). While the Court’s decision dispenses rather cleanly with the possibility of collecting fees for prevailing in an IPR, the Court nonetheless left open the door to collecting fees if the IPR is intimately tied to a pending parallel district court case. How much does that matter?
Read MoreIn a precedential decision that issued on May 19, ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court’s recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest. recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest.
Read MoreOn May 12, 2020, Amarin ($AMRN) filed its opening appeal brief in its appeal of the decision by the District of Nevada wherein the Honorable Miranda M. Du invalidated six patents that were asserted against prospective generics, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s. What does the brief say?
Read MoreThe PTAB’s decision in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case No. IPR2020-00019 (Paper No. 11) has been designated precedential as of May 5, 2020. The decision outlines the factors that the PTAB will consider when determining whether petitions should be denied under § 314(a) based upon a parallel district court litigation in which the same invalidity arguments have been raised. The case implicates the balance between patent owners and patent challengers, and who carries the heavier load.
Read MoreThe next great mobile video IP dispute has just kicked off, with starring roles assigned to some of Wall Street and Hollywood’s leading lights. Enjoy the show.
Read MoreIn Amarin’s pending Hatch-Waxman Vascepa case against Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, we see at least obstacles to settlement at this time before resolution of the appeal: money, entry and invalidity.
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 MoreWe have received several follow-up questions, both online and offline, regarding some of our earlier posts – especially on the topics of Kurabayashi and prospective settlement. This post will attempt to collect further thoughts on Kurabayashi. This post gets deeper into the weeds than most of our earlier posts, but it is in response to thoughtful questions and comments that investors clearly looking for areas of weakness in the district court’s opinion. We will follow up shortly on another post discussing dynamics of a potential settlement.
Read MoreUltimately, these parallel cases are critical for both Altria and BAT investors to monitor going forward. If the products at issue really have such commercial promise domestically, successful patent assertion by BAT could have a material impact on Altria’s profits going forward. The tobacco patent war of 2020 is under way…
Read MoreWhile investors can draw their own conclusions as to whether Kite’s strategy paid off (for itself, or for Gilead) even with the negative patent litigation results to date, it is clear that the appeal of this case is one to watch for both Gilead and BMS investors. With so much money at stake, as well as the risk that BMS will benefit going forward from YESCARTA® sales, this case illustrates the importance of IP due diligence in biopharma acquisitions, as well as the outsized value patents continue to command for true scientific advances.
Read More