Nothing says summer in Wilmington, Delaware like a full-on patent trial. Especially when the trial involves two brand name companies -- in this case IBM and Groupon -- fighting more over principle than anything else. Sure, IBM has a big demand for over $150mm in damages sitting out there. What's really on trial, however, is IBM's insistence on extracting a toll from e-commerce providers, backed by its getting-creaky-with-age but extensive patent portfolio. And a company on the other side, Groupon, that doesn't feel like IBM's demands are justified.
Read MoreEvery year, it seems, the Federal Circuit issues a precedential decision on damages, which seems to make the whole process more difficult. The latest of these decisions comes in the long-running patent battle between Power Integrations and Fairchild. In its latest opinion, the Court addresses the entire-market-value rule. The Court essentially guts the rule, and leaves open the question whether there is an reasonable scenario where it will ever be applicable.
Read MoreUC was recently awarded two patents on CRISPR technology. UC is currently embroiled in a highly-watched dispute with the Broad Institute over who owns the heralded first patents covering CRISPR-Cas9 in plant and animal cells. (We previously blogged about the dispute here and here.) While that dispute remains pending, the question remains how important UC’s two new CRISP patents are? How much will they impact the overall intellectual-property being claimed over the burgeoning CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
Read MoreThe biosimilars are biting. And they are biting at three big biologics distributed by Roche through its biotech subsidiary, Genentech. Roche currently faces pending biosimilar competition against Avastin® (bevacizumab), Roche’s biggest selling cancer drug, Herceptin® (trastuzmab), Roche’s breast-cancer drug, and Rituxan® (rituximab), Roche’s immunotherapy drug. All three drugs are involved in patent litigations. How long will these cases last? And how long can Roche keep the biosimilars out?
Read MoreSenator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) recently proposed an amendment to the Hatch-Waxman Act that would significantly upset the availability of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) for generic pharmaceutical companies. Senator Hatch appears to believe that brand pharmaceutical companies deserve patents more than others.
Read MoreEarlier this year, Teva ($TEVA) filed an ANDA to distribute a generic version of Korlym®, and soon thereafter, Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) commenced a Hatch-Waxman patent suit in federal court in New Jersey. On June 15, 2018, Teva moved to dismiss the case. What is this motion all about? And will Teva’s motion prevail?
Read MoreAs investors (should) know, the current worldwide patent war between Qualcomm and Apple is perhaps the most important set of ongoing patent litigation there is. As Bloomberg notes in a overview article of the dispute, the stakes are high. Apple faces the possibility of injunctive relief against, most importantly in its key manufacturing site and second-most important sales market, China. For its part, Qualcomm needs to recover billions in lost revenue from Apple (up to $4.5bn, according to some estimates) while maintaining the industry perception that Qualcomm's vast patent portfolio is indispensable and of inordinate value.
Read MoreOn June 4, 2018, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Allergan’s effort to assert tribal immunity at the PTAB to shut down six IPRs against its Restasis® patents. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has appealed the PTAB’s prior decision that it cannot assert its immunity as a basis to terminate the IPRs. While there was no clear indication for how the three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit would rule, there were some interesting exchanges revealing how the Court views these types of transactions, and how viable they may be in the future.
Read MoreThis week’s edition of The Economist addresses an interesting spin on the prospects of budding Silicon Valley startups living under the shadow of Big Tech. The fantasy of getting bought is being supplanted by the reality of getting taken out. The Economist argues that startups now live within a kill zone maintained by Big Tech—either sell out on our terms, or we’ll co-opt your technology and launch our own product. While antitrust may be one solution to give more leverage to innovators, what about patents?
Read MoreOn June 5, 2018, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument on Kite Pharma’s ($GILD) appeal of its IPR loss related to Sloan-Kettering’s and Juno Therapeutic’s ($CELG) CAR-T patent. What issues will it be important to listen for in the panel’s questions?
Read MoreThe parties recently filed a report that appears to identify what the September trial will focus on, but it was filed under seal, which leaves investors in the dark.
Read MoreThe much-anticipated trial in the biosimilar litigation over Enbrel® has been pushed from April, to June and now to September. Although Amgen ($AMGN) has asserted five patents against Sandoz’s ($NVS) proposed biosimilar, Erelzi®, the focus of the case are the two Roche patents directed to the entanercept protein itself. And yet, a skirmish has erupted related to one of the three other patents, which collectively cover indications for using entanercept to treat psoriasis indications.
Read MoreOn May 3, 2018, Nike ($NKE) sued Puma for patent infringement. Nike’s principle gripe is that Puma ripped off its groundbreaking “knitwear” sneaker as well as its tech for Air and cleats. Nike’s lawsuit touches three large product segments, and Puma faces considerable exposure if Nike prevails. That exposure is increased based upon Nike’s request for potentially triple damages, lost profits and an injunction. Is this the start of the sneaker patent wars?
Read MoreOn April 30, the Federal Circuit convened oral argument in the highly-watched patent case between UC and Broad over the interference proceeding covering patents for CRISPR-Cas9. (An overview of the case and the respective arguments were published in an earlier post.) The hotly-contested argument suggests the Court is leaning towards Broad, but raises deeper questions about whether this is a success or failure for the patent system.
Read MoreThe epic CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute has reached the Federal Circuit. UC previously lost its bid to the Patent Office to eviscerate Broad’s patents through an interference proceeding. That decision is now on appeal. The briefing at the Federal Circuit is complete, and oral argument is scheduled for April 30, 2018. Who will win at the Federal Circuit—UC or Broad?
Read MoreOn April 17, 2018, a new patent issued to Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) that covers Korlym®. The patent is U.S. Patent No. 9,943,526 pursuant to U.S. Patent Application No. 15/133,791. The ‘526 patent has already been added to the Orange Book. Korlym® was already protected by two patents listed in the Orange Book, and Corcept recently commenced a Hatch-Waxman litigation against Teva asserting these two patents. How effective is the new ‘526 patent at keeping Teva at bay?
Read MoreOur earlier post on VirnetX’s recent $502M jury verdict commended the company and its counsel on an incredible win, but nevertheless pointed out that it might be for naught. The patents asserted in the trial for the $502M damages currently stand invalid pursuant to petitions for inter pares re-examination and inter partes review. But what about Oil States? The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, and it addresses the constitutionality of petitions for inter partes review (IPR). The case has already heard oral argument, and a decision is expected imminently. Some commentators have suggested that if the Supreme Court holds IPRs unconstitutional, then that will vacate the invalidity decisions of VirnetX’s patents from the PTAB, and nothing will finally stand in the way of VirnetX’s damages. What are the considerations that may keep alive VirnetX's prospect of collecting damages?
Read MoreOne of the hottest smartphone patent battles still raging is the one between China's Huawei and South Korea's Samsung. A true patent world war, with cases filed in Huawei's hometown of Szenzhen and good old Northern District of California, alleging various violations of 3G and 4G standard-essential patents owned by both companies, breach of contract claims relating to a failure to follow the FRAND licensing regime, and requests for injunctions aplenty. First blood went to Huawei, with a victory in the Szenzhen trial court (appeal pending) resulting in the issuance of an injunction, which, if enforced, could result in a shutdown of Samsung's formidable China-based smartphone manufacturing capacity -- bad news for any prospective buyers of the Galaxy S9 for example. Seeking immediate help from the ostensibly friendlier US-based court, Samsung moved for an antisuit injunction to stop Huawei from enforcing the injunction Huawei earned in China. Now that Samsung's motion was granted, it is a good time to consider 3 immediate takeaways from this important decision.
Read MoreIn a slightly new wrinkle in Celgene’s recent Revlimid® saga, Celgene ($CELG) has commenced another suit against Dr. Reddy’s ($RDY). (This is the third patent lawsuit connected to Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic for Revlimid®.) In the most recent suit, Celgene asserts five new patents (the ‘720, ‘977, ‘784, ‘866 and ‘531). The suit was commenced on April 13, 2018 in the federal court in New Jersey, where the other Revlimid® suits are currently pending. What’s this suit all about?
Read MoreVirnetX ($VHC) has won another trial against Apple ($APPL) in the federal court in Texas. This time the verdict is approximately $502M. But the patents stand invalid based upon PTO decisions, and those decisions are pending before the Federal Circuit. Who's winning this battle?
Read More