Blog

Leaders and Trends in Intellectual Property: Joint Health Products

By: Andreas Baltatzis & Gideon Eckhouse  |   February 10, 2017

Successful health and nutrition companies are built on innovative products and great brands. The strongest foundation for new products and brands is intellectual property, specifically patents and trademarks. Patents protect inventions and trademarks protect brands. 

FDA Approves Amgen’s Amjevita

By: Sandy King  |   September 27, 2016

On Friday, September 23, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Amgen Inc.’s Amjevita, which is the biosimilar equivalent of AbbVie Inc.’s immunosuppressant Humira. The drug is approved for more than a half-dozen conditions listed on the branded drug’s label, including severe psoriasis and Crohn’s disease.

Amgen v. Apotex Decision

By: Sandra King  |   July 18, 2016

On July 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Amgen v. Apotex affirming an order preliminarily enjoining Apotex from launching its version of Neulasta (pegfilgrastim)...Apotex contended that they were not required to provide post-licensure notice to Amgen and that such requirement may not be enforced by an injunction.

More Enhanced Damages on the Way?

By: Andreas Baltatzis & Emily A. Curtis  |   July 5, 2016

Following 2014 opinions changing the standards for attorneys’ fees in patent cases, the Supreme Court lowered the standard for awarding treble damages in patent infringement cases. See Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Nos. 14-1513 and 14-1520 (S.Ct. June 13, 2016). This decision will affect more than the final award given in a suit. Parties may adjust prelitigation strategies to conform to new standards that need to be met to avoid additional damages in an infringement suit.

Subject Matter Eligibility - May 2016 Update

By: Sandra King & Tom Powers  |   June 6, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the USPTO issued a memorandum to Examiners on the topic of “Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection.” The memorandum addressed how examiners should formulate a subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well as how examiners should evaluate an applicant’s response to a § 101 rejection. The main purpose of the memorandum was to assist examiners in applying the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility as well as the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.

Pages