Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Reasons for the PTAB’s Priority Determination in Broad’s Favor (Perhaps)
- Mexico Publishes Amendments to Intellectual Property Law
- PTAB (Again) Awards Priority of Invention to Broad in Interference No. 106,115
- Argentina Repeals Pharmaceutical Patent Examination Guidelines
- USPTO Moves to Protect Design Rights for Digital Innovations
about
Category: District Court
-
District Court Decision Impacts PTA Determinations By Donald Zuhn — On September 30th, the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of Wyeth, determining that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had misconstrued 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(A), and as a result, had denied Wyeth a portion of patent term to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 2, 2008, Judge William Young of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts issued his 150-page opinion in Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. , Amgen’s patent infringement suit over Roche’s Mircera® drug product (see "Victory for Amgen in District Court Decision – Part I"). …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As Patent Docs has reported (see Part I and Part II), last week District Court Judge William G. Young (D. Mass) issued a 150-page decision on post-trial motions and a permanent injunction, and provided his rationale for a number of pretrial summary judgment motion decisions, in Amgen Inc.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 2nd, District Court Judge William G. Young (D. Mass) issued a decision on post-trial motions and a permanent injunction in Amgen Inc. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Amgen’s patent infringement suit over Roche’s Mircera® drug product. In a 150-page opinion, Judge Young handed Amgen nothing less than a complete…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 2nd, District Court Judge William G. Young (D. Mass) issued a decision on post-trial motions and a permanent injunction in Amgen Inc. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Amgen’s patent infringement suit over Roche’s Mircera® drug product. In a 150-page opinion, Judge Young handed Amgen nothing less than a complete…
-
By Sherri Oslick — Late last week, Judge Pisano of the District Court of New Jersey granted summary judgment of no inequitable conduct in favor of AstraZeneca in its consolidated Paragraph IV litigation against Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz, Inc. over AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic drug Seroquel®. Because the Defendants previously abandoned their other defenses, no…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On June 9, 2008, the University of Pittsburgh obtained a judgment correcting inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 6,777,231 under 35 U.S.C. § 256. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California determined that several of the inventors, who had assigned their rights to the Regents of…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Judge Peter G. Sheridan, presiding) found after a bench trial on all issues that Bayer’s U.S. Patent 6,787,531 was invalid for obviousness. In doing so, the Court’s decision illustrated anew the uncertainties that the U.S. Supreme…
-
By Donald Zuhn — If you have been reading the reports placed by John White and Bob Spar over at the PLI Patent Blog, then you are probably already aware that Judge James C. Cacheris of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia did not issue a decision today after hearing…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Yesterday, we counted down stories #10 to #6 of the top stories covered at Patent Docs in 2007, and on Sunday, we listed stories #11 to #15. Today, we conclude the series by counting down the top five stories. In case you missed the articles the first time around…
Patent Docs 