martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Search Results (300) Documents on Litigation, Biotech & Life Sciences Show: results per page Sort by:  | Monsanto Ruling Protects Innovators of Self-Replicating Biotechnology
William L. Warren, David E. Wigley; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 17, 2013, previously published on May 14, 2013 On May 13, 2013, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Monsanto v. Bowman that the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds for planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission, thus affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...
|  | Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies
Antoinette F. Konski; Foley & Lardner LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 16, 2013, previously published on May 13, 2013 Today in Bowman v. Monstanto Co., 569 U.S. -- (2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion,the authorized sale of a patented article only gives the purchaser or any subsequent owner of the patented article the right to use or resell that article. It does not...
| | Federal Circuit Upholds One Claim Covering Combigan
Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff; Foley & Lardner LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 8, 2013, previously published on May 7, 2013 In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court in part, finding that Allergan’s composition claims and most of its method claims are invalid as obvious, but upholding one method claim because it recites a non-obvious result. Some of the court’s...
| | Court Rules that FDA has the Inherent Authority to Rescind a 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Determination if It Does so Within a Reasonable Period of Time
Carmelina G. Allis; Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article April 30, 2013, previously published on April 28, 2013 As we previously reported, ReGen Biologics, Inc. ("ReGen"), which has been acquired by Ivy Sports Medicine, LLC ("Ivy"), filed suit in 2011 challenging FDA’s authority to rescind the 2008 510(k) substantial equivalence determination for the company’s...
| | Federal Circuit Finds Prosecution History Disclaimer in Enablement Arguments
Margareta K. Sorenson; Foley & Lardner LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 24, 2013, previously published on April 23, 2013 In Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld a narrow claim interpretation based on prosecution history disclaimer. The court held that the applicants’ arguments against an enablement rejection served to disclaim the broader claim scope sought in the infringement...
| | "Human Genes" and Patents
Antoinette F. Konski; Foley & Lardner LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 16, 2013, previously published on April 15, 2013 At 10:00 A.M. on April 15th, the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain oral arguments in the dispute now known as the human “gene patenting” case. The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398 (2013) is likely the highest profile patent dispute before the...
| | Recent Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision May Indicate Trend Supporting Private Right of Action for Violation of FDCA Regulations
Morris Polich Purdy LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 15, 2013, previously published on April 9, 2013 In an unpublished opinion, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently held that a medical device manufacturer can be liable for a plaintiff’s injury under state law for violating federal regulations. See Howard et al v. Zimmer Inc., et al. 2013 OK 17 (March 19, 2013.) The majority of the Court held...
| | ResMed Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems
Alexander B. Englehart, Eric W. Schweibenz; Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.;
Legal Alert/Article April 3, 2013, previously published on March 29, 2013 On March 28, 2013, ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California, ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California, and ResMed Ltd. of Australia (collectively, “ResMed”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
| | Mediating Non-Compete Disputes in the Medical Device Industry
Michael R. Greco; Fisher & Phillips LLP;
Legal Alert/Article March 21, 2013, previously published on March 17, 2013 The medical device industry remains a hotbed for non-compete litigation, and the reason is plain and simple. Economic justification. Sales reps develop close relationships with surgeons who purchase millions of dollars worth of medical devices each year. Top reps at industry leaders commonly have...
| | Convergence and Divergence on Securities Class Actions
Brandon Barnes, Kate Southwell; Davis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article March 14, 2013, previously published on March 14, 2013 The class action is a litigation technique that lends itself well to claims by security-holders against issuers. The classes of purchasers of securities are easily definable, the losses are often all too publicly ascertainable, and the procedural benefits of one large claim (as opposed to a...
|
|