I’ve previously written about Arbutus’ patent disputes with Moderna and Pfizer. In Arbutus’ case against Pfizer, the court recently conducting a claim construction hearing. Before that hearing, Pfizer argued that many of Arbutus’ patents are “indefinite.” The court held it was premature for Pfizer to make this argument, but Pfizer nonetheless established that when the case reaches summary judgment, it will rely upon the doctrine of indefiniteness to prevail against Arbutus. What is indefiniteness in patent law? Are Arbutus’ patents indefinite? How viable is Pfizer’s “indefiniteness” defense?
Read MoreYesterday, we blogged about why the Markman hearing was cancelled in Celgene’s Revlimid® patent case against Dr. Reddy’s. Some analysts suggested that this is a positive indication of a settlement approaching with Dr. Reddy’s and possibly with all generics. We weigh in.
Read MoreA number of generics are moving in on Celgene's Revlimid. Leading the pack is Dr. Reddy’s, and although Celgene has asserted numerous patents against Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic, a single issue has crystallized in advance of an upcoming Markman hearing that could make or break the case.
Read More