Bevacizumab (Avastin®) is the subject of the widely watched “patent dance” dispute between Genentech and Amgen regarding Amgen’s proposed biosimilar. Hospira, however, (now owned by Pfizer) has chosen a different path in challenging Genentech patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017).
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invoked its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny Toyota’s IPR petition against Adaptive Headlamp’s U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 (“the ’034 patent”) in Toyota Motor Co. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-01740, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2017).
The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association.
Much like the world of Underland created in Lewis Carroll’s book Alice Through the Looking Glass, the blurring between copyright and trademark rights can create a topsy-turvy universe.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a rare request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an asserted anticipation ground in Asustek Computer, Inc. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, IPR2016-00647, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. March 8, 2017).
Under U.S. trademark law, any person (including a celebrity) can obtain a trademark registration for their name if they can establish that the public recognizes the name as a source identifier for certain products or services. Celebrities frequently obtain a federal trademark registration for “entertainment services.”
The Supreme Court in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp held that providing a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to patent infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1).
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Michael Meiresonne’s patent were obvious in Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., Case No. 16-1755 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017).
The PTAB issued two final written decisions upholding The University of Pennsylvania’s claims to methods of treating high cholesterol based, in part, on commercial success and the meaning of a “printed publication” in Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII LLC v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania, IPR2015-01835, Paper 56 (P.T.A.B., March 6, 2017) and IPR2015-01836, Paper 58 (P.T.A.B., March 6, 2017).
