Posts Tagged ‘biotechnology’

Rapid Litigation v. CellzDirect – A Break in the 101 Wall

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

On Julybreak-in-wall 5, 2016, a three judge Fed. Circuit panel of Moore, Prost and Stoll (Appeal no. 2015-1570) reversed the district court’s holding that claims to a method of isolating “hardy” twice -frozen hepatocytes (as I called them in my post of April 26 summarizing the oral argument) were patent-ineligible as no more than a law of nature accompanied by routine cryopreservation steps. (Please go here and read my summary of the oral argument – it will save me some typing time.) )A copy of the decision can be found at the end of this post.)

In that post, I noted that Judges Moore and Stoll hold technical degrees and appeared undaunted by Mayo and the resulting Mayo/Alice test for patent-eligibility. Although Judge Prost did not ask as many questions of the parties during oral argument, she joined in the decision.

(more…)

USPTO will “Fast Track” Cancer Immunotherapy Applications

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

fast-trackOn June 29, 2016, Director Lee promulgated rules to implement a one-year pilot program to effectively grant “Fast Track” status to applications with at least one claim to treating cancer using immunotherapy. (A copy of this document can be found at the end of this post.) I am sure that much will be written about this program, but the requirements for achieving this top-of-the-pile on the Examiners’ desk are much like the current “Fast Track” program. But let’s cut to the chase to see just what type of claim qualifies for the “Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program:

“The applications must contain at least one claim encompassing a method of ameliorating, treating or preventing a malignancy in a human subject where the steps of the method assist or boost the immune system in eradicating cancerous cells. For example, this can include the administration of cells, antibodies, proteins, or nucleic acids that invoke an active (or achieve a passive) immune response to destroy cancerous cells. The Pilot Program also will consider claims drawn to the co-administration of biological adjuvants (e.g., interleukens, cytokines, Bacillus Comette-Guerin, monophosphoryl lipid A, etc.) in combination with conventional therapies for treating cancer such as chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. Claims to administering any vaccine that works by activating the immune system to prevent or destroy cancer cell growth are included. The Pilot Program will also consider in vivo, ex vivo, and adoptive immunotherapies, including those using autologous and/or heterologous cells or immortalized cell lines.”

(more…)

Supreme Court Rewrites the Law of Enhanced Damages

Tuesday, June 14th, 2016

This is a guest post by Janice M. Mueller of Chisum Patent Academy.

faculty-janice-e1402304436911Today the Supreme Court rewrote the law of enhanced damages for willful patent infringement by issuing a unanimous decision in No. 14-1513, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 2016 WL 3221515 (U.S. June 13, 2016), and the companion case, No. 14-1520, Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 2016 WL 3221515 (June 13, 2016). Swept away as “unduly rigid,” “inelastic,” impermissibly encumbering” district courts’ discretion, an “artificial construct,” and simply inconsistent with the text of 35 U.S.C. 284, the Federal Circuit’s elaborate framework for determining whether infringement damages should be enhanced (and reviewing such determinations on appeal), as set forth in In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 479 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gor & Assoc., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012), is no longer good law.

You can read the entire post here.

Merck’s Solvaldi® Patents Unenforceable for Egregious Misconduct

Monday, June 13th, 2016

gavelIn Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04057-BLE (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2016), Judge Beth Freeman, sitting in equity, found that the record compelled a finding that Merck and its employee “D” had obtained asserted patents 7,105,499 and 8,481,712 after using inequitable conduct. Earlier, the jury had found the patents valid and awarded Merck $200 million in damages for infringement  of this costly drug, that contains the active ingredient sofosbuvir or solvaldi.

Her 65 page order (a copy along is available at the end of this post) rests on the Fed. Cir.’s Therasense decision, which redefined inequitable conduct (“IC”). While most inequitable conduct charges are based on a failure of the patentee to disclose material prior art to the PTO, the court reaffirmed other bad behavior, not necessarily involving prior art:

(more…)