Anticipation by inherent disclosure requires that a single prior art reference necessarily includes the unstated limitation. The unpredictable nature of biological processes means that winning summary judgment of invalidity based on inherent anticipation is often difficult.
On December 23, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved SPINRAZA™ (nusinersen), an antisense oligonucleotide directed to survival motor neuron-2 (SMN2) transcripts for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in pediatric and adult patients.
On December 22, 2016, the Second Circuit gave tote bag manufacturer My Other Bag an early Christmas present by tossing out luxury giant Louis Vuitton’s claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and trademark dilution and agreeing with the District Court’s finding that My Other Bag was shielded from liability by the parody defense.
In December 2016, China’s Supreme Court held that a Chinese manufacturer named Qiaodan Sports Company, could not continue to produce athletic shoes, clothing and gear bearing the trademark 乔丹, which is the Chinese transliteration of famed NBA player Michael Jordan’s last name. The court’s ruling overturned two previous lower court decisions against Jordan, and is a rare win for foreign individuals and companies seeking to protect their intellectual property in China.
Patent applications containing nucleic acid or protein sequences are required to include an electronic sequence listing using a required format and standard symbols. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in conjunction with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is participating in an international effort that, if implemented, would dramatically change the requirements for sequence listings for the first time in 18 years.
In a recent article, we discussed how courts have used patent specifications in finding that patents satisfy the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Alice test. However, the specification may be a double-edged sword. Language in the specification can also doom the patent claims. Two recent federal court cases provide examples of how the courts have used the specification to invalidate claims under Alice.
The December 8, 2016 passage of the 21st Century Cures Act by Congress is expected to lead to sweeping changes to the biotech, medical device and health industries and streamline the regulatory system for approval of both drugs and medical devices. The Obama-supported bill was years in the making and is predicted to provide strong benefits to the biotech, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries.
In 2006, Warner Bros. filed suit against A.V.E.L.A., X One X Productions, and ArtNostalgia.com, Inc. (collectively, “AVELA”) for copyright and trademark infringement under the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and state law. AVELA used publicity materials that were created and distributed by Warner Bros. for the films Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, before the films were completed and copyrighted.
In the wake of Alice[1] the waters of eligibility under section 101 can be challenging to navigate, and particularly so for those seeking to obtain or enforce software patents. A two-part test for eligibility is the standard, with step one determining if a claim is directed to an abstract idea.
On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a 2014 jury verdict for AstraZeneca (AZ) and Ranbaxy regarding a 2012 payment of $700 million from AstraZeneca for Ranbaxy to abandon its challenge to patents covering Nexium®.
