The doctrine of patent assignor estoppel is not found in the U.S. statute, but that omission has led to only limited litigation over the doctrine despite the notoriety of the case of Hologic v. Minerva. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit reinforced the understanding that an assigned patent is still in force when the disputed claim is not seen has having been materially broadened by the time a patent has been granted in its final form, thus closing one of the principal contractual questions surrounding patents that are handed off from one device maker to another.
Med tech patents have been especially vulnerable to litigation in recent years, and a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms yet again the vulnerability of patents undergoing litigation. The Federal Circuit said nine claims found in two patents held by Becon Medical Ltd., of Batavia, Ill., were invalid due to obviousness, presenting the company a significant loss in its infringement litigation with Talexmedical LLC, of Malvern, Pa.
The effects of U.S. Supreme Court case law on patents are well demonstrated, but the latest victims of patent jurisprudence are directed toward a critical need for desperately ill patients. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that several claims found in three patents licensed to Caredx Inc., of Brisbane, Calif., are ineligible due to a purported lack of inventiveness under Section 101 of the Patent Act, an outcome that sustains what some believe is a trend in case law that is hostile toward diagnostic patents in the U.S.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) present regulators and payers alike with some interesting dilemmas, but that statement can be applied to patent offices and inventors as well. In this fifth installment in a series on AI in radiology, we’ll examine the hazards of acquiring and sustaining intellectual property protection for these algorithms, a much more complicated and complex undertaking than many developers might appreciate.
Novartis AG is not going quietly into the night after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed itself, invalidating a method patent covering a dosing regimen for the company’s blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug, Gilenya (fingolimod). After the split opinion came down June 21 from the three-judge panel, Novartis said it planned to file a petition seeking further review of the decision by the full court.
Not satisfied with the findings of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel, Turkey informed the WTO April 28 that it has initiated arbitration proceedings to review those findings, which involve an EU complaint about measures Turkey employs concerning the production, importation and marketing of prescription drugs.
Not satisfied with the findings of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel, Turkey informed the WTO April 28 that it has initiated arbitration proceedings to review those findings, which involve an EU complaint about measures Turkey employs concerning the production, importation and marketing of prescription drugs.
The lawsuit filed by Illumina Inc., against officials with Guardant Health Inc., revolves around trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by two former Illumina employees, including Helmy Eltoukhy, who helped to found Guardant while still employed at Illumina. Among other things, the complaint states that Eltoukhy had asked another Illumina employee about research that ultimately ended up in the hands of Guardant despite that the document in question was explicitly labeled as confidential and for internal use only.
Patent law cases are known for lengthy, intricate arguments and explanations, but a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit flew against this trend.
A split decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could give Novartis AG’s blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug, Gilenya (fingolimod), a little more breathing room from unlicensed generics.
