• CalendarOctober 29, 2013 – IP Due Diligence in M&A Transactions —
    Conducting IP Investigations and Leveraging Results During Deal Negotiations
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    October 29-30, 2013 – European Patent Practice Seminar (John Marshall Law
    School Center for Intellectual Property Law & Kuhnen & Wacker) – Chicago, IL

    October 30, 2013 – "Obviousness:
    'Objective Evidence' Redux, and Other Lessons from Recent Federal Circuit
    Decisions
    " (Intellectual Property Owners Association) – 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET)

    October
    31, 2013 – Strategic Use of Patent Reissue After the AIA
    — Correcting Errors in Patents, Determining Whether and When to Pursue a
    Reissue Application, and Mastering the Recapture Rule
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 4-5, 2013 – FDA Boot Camp Devices Edition*** (American Conference
    Institute) – Chicago, IL

    November 4-5, 2013 – Trade Secrets: Protecting Your Intellectual Capital and Confidential
    Business Information
    *** (American Conference
    Institute) – Chicago, IL

    November 6-8, 2013 – 2013 Fall Intellectual Property
    Counsels Committee (IPCC) Conference
    (Biotechnology
    Industry Organization) – Washington, DC

    November 7, 2013 – On Sale and Public Use Bars to Patentability
    After AIA — Minimizing the Risk of Patent Ineligibility or Invalidation
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 8, 2013 – 5th
    Annual RIPL Symposium
    (John Marshall
    Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL)) – Chicago, IL

    November 8, 2013 – IP Law
    Symposium
    (Intellectual
    Property Law Association of Chicago) – Chicago, IL

    November 13,
    2013 – "How University TTOs
    Can Slash Patent Expenses While Improving Patent Quality
    " (Technology
    Transfer Tactics) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern)

    November 14, 2013 – Obviousness Standard After the AIA:
    Leveraging Latest PTO and Court Guidance — Overcoming Challenges of
    Obviousness and Attacks on Patent Validity
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 17-20, 2013 – Creating and Leveraging Intellectual Property in Developing Countries: A Power Tool for Social and
    Economic Growth
    *** (Companies and IP Commission and National
    IP Management Office of South Africa) – Durban, South Africa

    November
    19, 2013 – PTAB or the District Court: Which
    Is the Better Option When Challenging Patent Validity?
    (McDonnell
    Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) – 10:00 to 11:15 am (CT)

    November
    19, 2013 – Patenting Biotech Inventions (California
    Healthcare Institute (CHI) and D Young & Co) – San Diego, CA

    November 20, 2013 – Patenting Biotech Inventions (California
    Healthcare Institute (CHI) and D Young & Co) – San Francisco, CA

    December 4, 2013 – Congress on Biotech & Pharma Patenting*** (C5 (UK)) – London, UK

    December 5, 2013 – Forum on Biosimilars*** (C5 (UK)) – London, UK

    December 9-10, 2013 – Patent Infringement Litigation Summit (Legal iQ (IQPC)) – San Francisco, CA

    December 10-11, 2013 – Advanced
    Forum on Patent Litigation
    *** (American Conference
    Institute) – New York, NY

    ***Patent Docs is a media partner of this conference or CLE

  • IPO #2The
    Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar
    entitled "Obviousness:
    'Objective Evidence' Redux, and Other Lessons from Recent Federal Circuit
    Decisions" on October 30, 2013 beginning at 2:00 pm (ET).  A panel consisting of William Solander of
    Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto; Kara Stoll of Finnegan, Henderson,
    Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; and Dale Davis of General Electric Co. will
    discuss how to use recent case law to leverage secondary considerations to best
    advantage.  The panel will also discuss:

    • Recent important litigation victories for patent owners at the Federal Circuit,
    including Transocean v. Maersk, Plantronics v. Aliph, and Leo v. Rea;

    The importance of proving a causal nexus between the patent and secondary
    considerations;

    How best to use objective evidence in front of the USPTO; and

    Issues stemming from the need to collect and analyze objective evidence
    generated within a corporate environment and the market.

    The
    registration fee for the webinar is $120 (government and academic rates are
    available upon request).  Those
    interested in registering for the webinar can do so here.

  • IPLACThe Intellectual
    Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) will be holding its annual IP Law
    Symposium on November 8, 2013 at the Standard Club in Chicago, IL.  The Symposium will offer presentations on the
    following topics:

    • State of the
    Court in the N.D. of Illinois — Hon.
    Ruben Castillo, Chief Judge, N.D. of Illinois

    • Top 10 Things You
    Must Know About Developments in Patent Law

    • Recent Cases
    Involving Post Grant Proceedings

    • The New Ethics of
    Deception

    • District Court
    Litigation: Views from the Bench — panel including Hon. Matthew Kennelly (moderator), N.D. of Illinois; Hon. James Holderman, N.D. of Illinois;
    Hon. Rebecca Pallmeyer, N.D. of
    Illinois; and Hon. Sidney Schenkier,
    N.D. of Illinois

    • Federal Circuit
    Discussion — Hon. Richard Linn,
    Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    A complete list of
    topics to be covered during the Symposium and speakers/panelists can be found
    here.  The registration fee for the Symposium is $275
    (IPLAC members) or $425 (non-members). 
    Those registering on or before October 27, 2013 will receive a $50
    discount off the registration fee.  The
    registration fee includes breakfast and luncheon buffets.  Those interested in registering can do so here.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan

    St_judes_childrens_hospitalLest anyone think that Myriad Genetics is the only
    patentee asserting rights in patents having claims to isolated DNA molecules or
    other biological molecules, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, Inc. has
    sued Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. in the Federal District Court, Western
    District of Tennessee for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,529,925; 5,770,421; and 6,696,548 (see "Court Report," October 20, 2013).  The grounds for St. Jude's infringement allegations are activities
    by Novartis "to research, develop, and evaluate small molecule tyrosine
    kinase inhibitors, including, but not limited to, LDK378," some of that
    research having taken place in Memphis, TN within the Court's
    jurisdiction.  Those activities include,
    according to the complaint, making or using "ALK
    nucleic acids, proteins, polypeptides, and/or antibodies in a manner that
    infringes the '925, '421, and '548 patents."  Novartis has declined St. Jude's demands for
    an explanation of its activities.  St. Jude alleges in its complaint that
    Novartis' refusal to substantively respond supports an inference that Novartis "is
    and has been infringing the '925, '421 and '548 patents with knowledge of the
    patents" (and hence is willful), that "Novartis will continue to
    infringe the '925, '421 and '548 patents unless or until" enjoined by the
    Court; and that "Novartis has caused and will continue to cause St. Jude
    irreparable injury and damage by infringing the '925, '421, and '548 patents.  St. Jude will suffer further irreparable injury, for which it has no adequate
    remedy at law, unless and until Novartis is enjoined from infringing the '925, '421, and '548
    patents."

    The claims of the asserted patents read as follows:

    The '925 patent:

    1. An isolated nucleic acid molecule
    having the nucleotide sequence of the human cDNA insert encoding anaplastic
    lymphoma kinase protein, ALK, contained in plasmid pRMS17-2, deposited at the
    American Type Culture Collection as ATCC designation 69497.

    2. A vector construct comprising a vector into
    which has been inserted the isolated nucleic acid molecule of claim 1.

    3. A cultured host cell transformed with the vector
    construct of claim 2.

    4. The vector construct of claim 2, wherein said
    vector construct is plasmid pRMS17-2.

    5. A host cell transformed with the vector
    construct of claim 4.

    The '421 patent:

    1. An isolated human anaplastic lymphoma
    kinase (ALK) polypeptide, wherein said isolated ALK polypeptide
        (a) has tyrosine kinase activity; and
        (b) renders an interleukin-3-dependent lymphoid
    cell line factor independent.

    2. An isolated ALK polypeptide of claim 1,
    comprising a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.

    3. An isolated ALK polypeptide of claim 1,
    comprising a polypeptide having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4.

    4. An isolated ALK polypeptide, comprising at least
    one structural domain of an ALK protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ
    ID NO:2, wherein said structural domain is selected from the group consisting
    of an extracellular domain, a transmembrane domain, a catalytic domain, a
    signal peptide domain, an intracellular domain, a kinase domain, an
    immunoreactive domain and a fusion domain.

    5. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 27-1030 of SEQ ID NO:2
    as said extracellular domain.

    6. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 1031-1058 of SEQ ID
    NO:2 as said transmembrane domain.

    7. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 1023-1376 of SEQ ID
    NO:2 as said catalytic domain.

    8. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 1-26 of SEQ ID NO:2 as
    said signal peptide domain.

    9. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 1059-1620 of SEQ ID
    NO:2 as said intracellular domain.

    10. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 605-1509 of SEQ ID NO:2
    as said kinase domain.

    11. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 1359-1460 of SEQ ID
    NO:2 as said immunoreactive domain.

    12. An isolated ALK polypeptide according to claim
    4, wherein said structural domain comprises amino acids 979-1078 of SEQ ID NO:2
    (corresponding to amino acids 1-100 of SEQ ID NO:7) as said fusion domain.

    The '548 patent:

    1. An isolated antibody that specifically
    binds a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2.

    2. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody further specifically binds a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid
    sequence of SEQ ID NO:4.

    3. An isolated antibody tat specifically binds a
    polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 7.

    4. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    ALK polypeptide is denatured.

    5. The isolated antibody of claim 3, wherein said
    polypeptide is denatured.

    6. An isolated antibody that specifically binds an
    isolated polypeptide, wherein said isolated polypeptide consists of at least
    one domain of an ALK polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ
    ID NO:2, wherein said domain is selected from the group consisting of an
    extxacellular domain, a transmembrane domain, a catalytic domain, a signal
    peptide domain, an intracellular domain, a kinase domain, an immunoreactive
    domain and a fusion domain.

    7. The isolated antibody of claim 6, wherein said
    isolated polypeptide is denatured.

    8. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment consists of
    amino acids 27-1030 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    9. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 1031-1058 of SEQ ID NQ:2.

    10. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 1023-1376 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    11. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 1-26 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    12. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 1059-1620 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    13. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 605-1509 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    14. The isolated antibody of claim 1, wherein said
    antibody specifically binds to a fragment and wherein said fragment comprises
    amino acids 1359-1460 of SEQ ID NO:2.

    NovartisThis suit may provide the first opportunity to
    determine the extent to which a defendant can extend the Supreme Court's Myriad decision to encompass isolated, "naturally
    occurring" biological molecules other than nucleic acids, and in the
    process provide a gauge as to how fundamentally the Court has harmed the patent
    system, the economy, and the public health.  Alternatively, depending on Novartis' activities, the company may be able
    to employ another 9-0 Supreme Court decision, the Merck v. Integra opinion, where the Court disregarded Congressional
    intent as set forth expressly in the legislative history of the Hatch-Waxman
    Act to expand the scope of the statutory safe harbor (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)) to encompass development of chemical
    lead compounds that rarely if ever are submitted to the FDA or other regulatory
    agency.  That case explicitly excluded a
    determination of whether so-called "research tools" (which could
    include embodiments of the St. Jude's claims) should fall within the scope of
    the safe harbor; this case could provide an avenue for the Court to continue
    its expansion of non-infringing behavior with regard to patents relating to
    drug development and other invention related to the medical arts.

  • By Andrew Williams

    Goodlatte, BobAfter
    releasing two "discussion drafts," Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) (at right), the
    Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, finally introduced a bill in
    the House on October 23, 2013, with the non-descript title of "Innovation
    Act."  Rep. Goodlatte had released
    his first discussion draft on May 23, 2013, and a substantially revised draft
    dated September 6, 2013.  Many of the provisions
    of the second draft were met with skepticism in the patent community, and
    unfortunately, the currently introduced bill differs only on minor respects.  At the time of release of the second
    discussion draft, we highlighted some of the major provisions (see "Rep. Goodlatte Introduces Second 'Discussion Draft' of Legislation Aimed at Curbing 'Abusive Patent Litigation'").  In an effort to minimize repetition, we will
    point out some of the changes that were made to the bill in the intervening
    month, and we highlight some of the issues or concerns that the bill presents.

    We
    will also only focus on the section dealing with patent infringement actions
    here, considering the motivation behind the present bill was to combat the
    perceived "patent troll" problem.  Rep. Goodlatte explained when he release the first discussion draft:  "This
    bill helps to address the issues that businesses of all sizes and industries
    face from patent troll-type behavior and aims to correct the current
    asymmetries surrounding abusive patent litigation."  Of course, as whenever the derogative term
    is invoked, this bill does not attempt to define what a "patent troll"
    is.  As such, the bill does not adequately
    differentiate between practicing and non-practicing entities.  In other words, the bill is not narrowly
    tailored to address the problem that it was introduced to solve.  Therefore, even if the goal is to take down
    the trolls, this bill could have the unintended consequence of
    taking down the entire patent system with it.

    One
    of the most significant problems with the present bill is the move from "notice"
    pleading to initiate a patent infringement lawsuit towards something that much
    more resembles the detail required by infringement contentions not normally
    required until much later in the litigation.  Therefore, the type of information that the bill will require any party
    asserting a patent (whether in the complaint, counter-claim, or cross-claim) to
    plead includes an identification of each patent and each claim allegedly
    infringed, an explanation as to where each element of each claim is found in
    each "accused instrumentality," whether each element is infringed
    literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and how the terms of each claim
    correspond to the functionality of the accused instrument.  It is unclear with this level of detail
    whether claim charts will be required to satisfy this pleading requirement.  The pleadings will also require a description
    of the direct infringement, the acts of any alleged indirect infringement, and
    the right of the party to assert the patent, a list of complaints already filed
    which identify the same patent, and whether the patent is subject to any
    licensing terms or pricing commitments.  Of course, a similar requirement is not imposed on an alleged infringer
    pleading invalidity of the patent, which may by understandable considering the
    time constraints involved in answering a complaint.  However, this is not true when a potential
    infringer brings a declaratory judgment action including a count of invalidity,
    but the bill does not address this situation.

    One
    of the problems with such heightened pleading standard is that accused
    infringers might be able to successfully challenge a patent infringement
    lawsuit on the sufficiency of the pleadings without ever having to address the
    merits of the case.  Even though the bill
    provides what type of information must be included in the complaint, it does
    not specify the level of detail required.  It is also unclear what the penalty will be for patent holder failing
    such a sufficiency challenge.  Parties normally
    have the right to amend the complaint once without seeking leave of the Court,
    but will the courts freely grant leave if more than one complaint is
    needed?  More importantly, if the patent
    holder's infringement contentions are modified during discovery, will an
    amended complaint need to be filed?  Will
    information contained in the complaint lead to any estoppel issues down the
    road?  And, if the alleged infringer
    challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint, can the patent holder seek limited
    discovery for the purposes satisfying the pleading requirements?  Unfortunately, none of these issues are
    addressed by the bill.

    On
    the bright-side, one of the changes included in the bill since the second
    discussion draft is that it now includes a provision for situations in which
    the information is not readily accessible to a party.  However, to invoke this provision, the patent
    holder will still need to include in the pleadings why the undisclosed
    information was not available and the efforts undertaken to access this
    information.  Of course, as with the
    issues raised above, it is unclear what the standard will be to determine if
    information is, in fact, unavailable, and what that standard will be to
    determine whether research efforts were satisfactory.  The newly introduced bill also includes a
    provision for filing such a complaint under seal if it contains confidential
    information.

    Another
    controversial provision of the bill relates to significant proposed changes to
    35 U.S.C. § 285.  This section currently
    provides for the possibility of awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing
    party in "exceptional circumstances."  However, the newly introduced bill flips the default, so instead of
    attorney's fees being a possibility in certain cases, the bill requires courts
    to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party unless they "find
    that the position of the nonprevailing party or parties was substantially
    justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust."  It is clear that the purpose of this
    provision is to provide the courts with the ability to "punish"
    non-practicing entities that are considered to assert their patents
    abusively.  However, this provision will
    likely to have the consequence of stifling legitimate patent infringement
    lawsuits, regardless of whether the patent holder is a practicing entity or
    not.  If the goal is to enable the courts
    to curb patent abuse, 35 U.S.C. § 285 as it currently stands can be amended to
    remove the "exceptional circumstances" requirement, as many
    commenters have suggested and as introduced in other bills currently
    pending in Congress.

    Rep.
    Goodlatte and others were motivated to introduce this bill to curb the
    perceived patent assertion abuses that have been so frequently reported in the
    mainstream media (usually without much factual support for the
    proposition).  Instead, the bill that was
    introduced is not narrowly tailored, but rather is a blunt instrument that will
    impact all patent infringement actions (outside of Hatch-Waxman actions brought
    pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)).  It
    is important to note, however, that this bill has yet to be discussed by the
    Committee on the Judiciary, so the chance of it passing the House in its
    current state, much less passing the Senate, is highly unlikely.  We will, of course, continue to follow and
    report on the progress of this bill, as well any comparable bills that are
    introduced in either the House or the Senate.

  • By Kevin E.
    Noonan

    MyriadOn July 19th,
    Myriad Genetics amended its complaint against Ambry Genetics to include claims
    to its patents relating to colon cancer predictive genetic diagnostic testing (amended complaint).  For those keeping score, the specific claims
    Myriad alleges are infringed include the following:  claim 6 of U.S.
    Patent No. 5,709,999; claims 6, 16 and 17 of  U.S.
    Patent No. 5,747,282; claims 7, 8, 12, 23, and 26 of U.S.
    Patent No. 5,753,441; claims 29 and 30 of U.S. Patent No.
    5,837,492; claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,033,857; claims 2, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent
    No. 5,654,155; claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of U.S.
    Patent No. 5,750,400; claims 32 and 33 of U.S. Patent No.
    6,051,379; claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,951,721; claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14,
    17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,497; claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
    13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,470,510; claims 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of
    U.S. Patent No. 7,622,258; claims 2, 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent
    No. 7,838,237; claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 12 of
    U.S. Patent No. 7,670,776; and claims 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent
    No. 7,563,571.

  • By
    Kevin E. Noonan

    MyriadTurnabout
    being fair play, Myriad Genetics today filed suit against Quest Diagnostics,
    Inc. and Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute for patent infringement in an
    action brought in the Federal District Court for the District of Utah, Central
    Division (complaint).  The alleged infringing
    activities include Quest's BRCAvantage™ Comprehensive, BRCAvantage™ Ashkenazi
    Jewish Screen, BRCAvantage™ Single Site, and BRCAvantage™ Rearrangements
    products, and the claims asserted are U.S. Patent No. 5,709,999,
    Claims 5, 6,
    7, 10, 24, 25, 33, and/or 34; U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282,
    Claims 6, 16,
    and/or 17; U.S. Patent No.  5,753,441,  Claims 7, 8, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24, and/or 26;
    U.S. Patent No. 5,837,492,
    Claims 29
    and/or 30; U.S. Patent No. 6,033,857,  Claim 4; U.S. Patent No. 6,051,379,  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16,
    17, 19, 20, 32, 33, 40, and/or 42; U.S. Patent No. 6,951,721,  Claim 5; and U.S. Patent No. 7,250,497,  Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, and/or
    19.

    Quest DiagnosticsMyriad bases its factual allegations
    on the facts Quest asserted in its declaratory judgment action filed in the
    District Court for the Central District of California (see "Diagnostics Giant Quest Files Declaratory Judgment Action against Myriad Genetics"), and ask for a
    jury trial on infringement, request a preliminary and permanent injunction,
    treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, enhanced damages and
    destruction of all Quest's products that infringe any of the asserted claims.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan

    MyriadAfter a brief hiatus that saw Counsyl and
    Quest Diagnostics file declaratory judgment actions in alternate venues, Myriad
    has filed yet another lawsuit against a genetic diagnostics company that
    brought its own BRCA gene testing to market after the Supreme Court's decision
    in AMP v. Myriad Genetics.  Last Wednesday, Myriad filed suit against
    this company, GeneDx of Gaithersburg, in the District of Utah, Central
    Divisions (Case No. 2:13-CV-00954-TS; complaint).  The complaint is similar to Myriad's complaints against Ambry Genetics and
    Gene-by-Gene, but this time Myriad has added infringement allegations relating
    to its mutY homolog (MUTYH) test for hereditary colon cancer.  Once again, Myriad is joined by the
    University of Utah Research Foundation, the Trustees of the University of
    Pennsylvania, HSC Research and Development Limited Partnership, and Endorecherche
    Inc.

    This Complaint alleges that:

    With knowledge of Plaintiffs' patents,
    Defendant began offering its BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis as part of its
    cancer-testing menu on or about August 26, 2013.  On information and belief,
    Defendant offers stand-alone tests comprising full gene sequencing and
    deletion/duplication analyses for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes.  On information
    and belief, Defendant also offers full gene sequencing and deletion/duplication
    analyses for the BRCA 1, BRCA 2, and MUTYH genes as part of multiple hereditary
    cancer panels that test cancer susceptibility using next-generation and Sanger
    sequencing technology.

    GeneDxMyriad alleges infringement by GeneDx's "making,
    manufacturing, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for
    sale and selling and/or causing to be offered or sold certain BRCA1 and BRCA2
    Sequencing, BRCA1 and BRCA2 Deletion/Duplication Analysis, BRCA1 and BRCA2
    Sequencing and Deletion/Duplication Analysis, BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi Founder
    Mutation Panel, Comprehensive Cancer Panel, Breast/Ovarian Cancer Panel,
    Pancreatic Cancer Panel, Endometrial Cancer Panel, and Breast Cancer High Risk
    Panel products."  The specific
    claims Myriad alleges are infringed include the following:  claim 6 of
    U.S. Patent No. 5,709,999;
    claims 6, 16 and 17 of  U.S. Patent No. 5,747,282;
    claims 7, 8, 12, 23, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441;
    claims 29 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 5,837,492;
    claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,033,857;
    claims 2, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,654,155;
    claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,750,400;
    claims 32 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,051,379;
    claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,951,721;
    claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,250,497;
    claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No.
    7,470,510; claims 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,622,258;
    claims 2, 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,838,237; claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 12
    of U.S. Patent No. 7,670,776; claims 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,563,571; and claim
    73 of U.S. Patent No. 6,083,698.

    The allegations regarding the '510, '259,
    '237, '776, '571, and '698 patents relate to GeneDx's colon cancer tests, and the
    claims at issue are as follows:

    The asserted '510 patent claims:

    5. A
    method for determining whether a human subject harbors a mutation in an hMYH
    gene of the human subject that decreases an activity of the encoded hMYH
    protein, said method comprising: providing an hMYH-encoding nucleotide sequence
    of the human subject; and determining the presence or absence of a difference
    in a coding region in said hMYH-encoding nucleotide sequence, relative to SEQ
    ID NO:1, which results in decreased binding of the encoded hMYH protein to a
    substrate containing an A/GO mispair, or decreased glycosylase activity of the
    encoded hMYH protein on the mispaired adenosine in an A/GO mispair in a
    substrate containing an A/GO mispair
    , wherein
    said hMYH-encoding nucleotide sequence is a complementary DNA sequence, and

    wherein the step of providing the hMYH-encoding nucleotide sequence comprises:
    obtaining a sample from said patient; isolating an hMYH-encoding nucleic acid
    from said sample; and determining the nucleotide sequence of said hMYH-encoding
    nucleic acid.

    6. The method of claim 5, wherein said step of
    determining the nucleotide sequence of said hMYH-encoding nucleic acid is by
    DNA sequencing.

    7. The method of claim 5, further comprising
    amplifying a portion of said hMYH-encoding nucleic acid and determining the
    nucleotide sequence of the amplified nucleic acid.

    8. The method of claim 5 wherein said sample is a
    blood sample, a urine sample, a saliva sample, a tissue biopsy sample, or an
    autopsy material sample.

    9. The method of claim 8 wherein said sample is a
    blood sample.

    10. A method for determining whether a human
    subject harbors a mutation in an hMYH gene of the human subject that decreases
    an activity of the encoded hMYH protein, said method comprising: isolating an
    hMYH-encoding nucleic acid from a sample obtained from the human subject; and
    determining the presence or absence of a mutation in a coding region in said
    hMYH-encoding nucleic acid, relative to SEQ ID NO:1, which results in decreased
    binding of the encoded hMYH protein to a substrate containing an A/GO mispair,
    or decreased glycosylase activity of the encoded hMYH protein on the mispaired
    adenosine in an A/GO mispair in a substrate containing an A/GO mispair.

    11. The method of claim 10 wherein said mutation is
    a substitution, a deletion, or an insertion.

    12. The method of claim 10 wherein said mutation
    results in a frame shift in, or a truncation of, the coding region.

    13. The method of claim 10 wherein said hMYH-encoding
    nucleic acid is a complementary DNA.

    14. The method of claim 10 wherein said
    hMYH-encoding nucleic acid is a genomic DNA.

    15. The method of claim 10 wherein the step of
    determining the presence or absence of a mutation comprises amplifying said
    coding region in said hMYH-encoding nucleic acid.

    16. The method of claim 15 wherein the step of
    determining the presence or absence of a mutation comprises detecting a change
    in the length of the amplified coding region.

    17. The method of claim 15 wherein the step of
    determining the presence or absence of a mutation comprises nucleic acid
    hybridization.

    18. The method of claim 10 further comprising
    deducing the amino acid sequence encoded by the isolated hMYH-encoding nucleic
    acid; and identifying a difference in the deduced amino acid sequence, relative
    to SEQ ID NO:2.

    (where the italicized portion of a claim
    recites limitations from earlier claims incorporated therein by dependency).

    The asserted '258 patent claims:

    10. A method for predicting in an individual the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer, comprising: determining from a sample obtained from the individual whether the individual has a nucleotide variant in an MYH gene of the individual that results in the amino acid variant G382D, wherein the presence of said nucleotide variant is indicative of an increased likelihood of developing colorectal cancer, wherein if the individual has said nucleotide variant, determining whether the individual is homozygous for said nucleotide variant, wherein said determining step comprises amplifying, from said sample obtained from the individual, the MYH gene, or a portion thereof.

    11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising sequencing the amplified MYH gene, or a portion thereof, of the individual.

    15. A method of genotyping, comprising: identifying an individual with colorectal adenomas or cancer, having at least one family member diagnosed with colorectal cancer, or with an increased risk for colorectal cancer; and determining subsequently, from a sample obtained from said identified individual, whether said identified individual has a nucleotide variant in an MYH gene of the individual that results in the amino acid variant G382D, wherein said determining step comprises hybridizing the MYH gene, or a portion thereof, obtained from said sample, with an oligonucleotide.

    16. The method according to claim 14, wherein said determining step comprises amplifying, from said sample, the MYH gene, or a portion thereof.

    17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising sequencing the amplified MYH gene, or a portion thereof, of the individual.

    19. A method for predicting in an individual the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer, comprising: determining from a sample obtained from the individual whether the individual has a nucleotide variant in an MYH gene of the individual that results in the amino acid variant G382D, wherein the presence of said nucleotide variant is indicative of an increased likelihood of developing colorectal cancer, wherein if the individual has said nucleotide variant, determining whether the individual is homozygous for said nucleotide variant, wherein said determining step comprises hybridizing the MYH gene, or a portion thereof, obtained from a sample from the individual, with an oligonucleotide.

    The asserted '237 patent claims:

    2. A
    method for genotyping an individual comprising: determining the presence or
    absence of a genetic variant selected from the group consisting of 347-1 G to A
    corresponding to position 7084 of SEQ ID NO:1, 891+3 A to C corresponding to
    position 8092 of SEQ ID NO:2, 970 C to T corresponding to position 970 of SEQ
    ID NO:3 and 349 T to A corresponding to position 349 of SEQ ID NO:4 in the MYH
    gene of the individual
    , wherein said determining step comprises sequencing
    the MYH gene or a portion thereof.

    8. A method
    for genotyping an individual comprising: determining whether the individual has
    a genetic variant at the position 347-1 G to A corresponding to position 7084
    of SEQ ID NO:1, 891+3 A to C corresponding to position 8092 of SEQ ID NO:2, 970
    C to T corresponding to position 970 of SEQ ID NO:3 or 349 T to A corresponding
    to position 349 of SEQ ID NO:4 in the MYH gene of the individual,
    wherein
    determining whether the individual has a genetic variant comprises amplifying
    the MYH gene of the individual, or a portion thereof, and determining if the
    MYH gene comprises the genetic variant.

    16. A method
    for predicting in an individual the likelihood of developing cancer,
    comprising: determining whether the individual has a genetic variant at the
    position 347-1 corresponding to position 7084 of SEQ ID NO:1, 891+3
    corresponding to position 8092 of SEQ ID NO:2, 970 corresponding to position
    970 of SEQ ID NO:3 or 349 corresponding to position 349 of SEQ ID NO:4 in the
    MYH gene of the individual, or an amino acid variant of Q324X or W117R of a
    polypeptide encoded by the MYH gene of the individual, wherein the presence of
    said genetic variant or the amino acid variant is indicative of an increased
    likelihood of developing cancer,
    wherein determining whether the individual
    has a genetic variant comprises amplifying the MYH gene of the individual, or a
    portion thereof, and determining if the MYH gene comprises the genetic variant.

    The asserted '776 patent claims:

    2. A method
    for genotyping an individual comprising: detecting the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene obtained from said individual,
    wherein said detecting step comprises sequencing the MYH gene.

    3. A method
    for genotyping an individual comprising: detecting the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene obtained from said individual,
    wherein a nucleic acid comprising said nucleotide variant is amplified from
    genomic DNA.

    5. A method
    for genotyping an individual comprising: detecting the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene obtained from said individual,
    wherein said detecting step comprises amplifying an exon, or fragment thereof,
    corresponding to the 691C T
    nucleotide variant.

    9. A method
    for determining an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer in an
    individual, comprising: determining from a sample obtained from said individual
    whether said individual has the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene
    of said individual, wherein the presence of said nucleotide variant is
    indicative of an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer
    ,
    wherein said determining step comprises sequencing the MYH gene.

    10. A method
    for determining an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer in an
    individual, comprising: determining from a sample obtained from said individual
    whether said individual has the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene
    of said individual, wherein the presence of said nucleotide variant is
    indicative of an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer
    ,
    wherein said determining step comprises amplifying the nucleotide variant from
    genomic DNA.

    12. A method
    for determining an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer in an
    individual, comprising: determining from a sample obtained from said individual
    whether said individual has the 691C
    T nucleotide variant in an MYH gene
    of said individual, wherein the presence of said nucleotide variant is
    indicative of an increased likelihood for developing colon cancer
    ,
    wherein said determining step comprises amplifying an exon, or fragment
    thereof, corresponding to the 691C T
    nucleotide variant.

    The asserted '571 patent claims:

    2. A
    method for genotyping an individual comprising: detecting a genetic variant
    that results in an amino acid variant at position R231H, in reference to SEQ ID
    NO:2, in the MYH gene of the individual
    , wherein said detecting step
    comprises sequencing the MYH gene or a portion thereof.

    7. A method
    comprising: isolating from an individual a genetic variant that corresponds to
    an amino acid variant at the position R231H, in reference to SEQ ID NO:2, in
    the MYH gene of the individual; and determining the presence of said genetic
    variant
    , wherein said determining step comprises sequencing the MYH gene or
    a portion thereof.

    The asserted '698 patent claims:

    73. A chip array having "n"
    elements for performing allele specific sequence-based techniques comprising:
        a solid phase chip and
        oligonucleotides having "n"
    different nucleotide sequences,
        wherein "n" is an integer
    greater than one, p1 wherein said oligonucleotides are bound to said solid phase
    chip in a manner which permits said oligonucleotides to effectively hybridize
    to complementary oligonucleotides or polynucleotides,
        wherein oligonucleotides having different
    nucleotide sequence are bound to said solid phase chip at different locations
    so that a particular location on said solid phase chip exclusively binds
    oligonucleotides having a specific nucleotide sequence, and
        wherein at least one oligonucleotide is an
    oligonucleotide that is an isolated
    nucleotide that hybridizes to either a normal or a mutant BRCA1 gene selected
    from the group consisting of:
        a
    first oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of a nucleotide in intron 6 at
    nucleotide number 421-2 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said first
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 421-2 of the BRCA1 gene,

        a
    second oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of two nucleotides at
    nucleotide number 815 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said second
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 815 of the BRCA1 gene,
        a
    third oligonucleotide for detecting an insertion of 10 nucleotides at
    nucleotide number 926 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said third
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 926 of the BRCA1 gene,

        a
    fourth oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of one nucleotide at nucleotide
    number 1506 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said fourth oligonucleotide
    specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide number 1506 of
    the BRCA1 gene,
        a
    fifth oligonucleotide for detecting a mutation of one nucleotide at nucleotide
    number 2034 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said fifth oligonucleotide
    specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide number 2034 of
    the BRCA1 gene,

        a
    sixth oligonucleotide for detecting an amino acid change from serine to a stop
    codon at codon 770 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said sixth oligonucleotide
    specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide number 2428 of
    the BRCA1 gene,
        a
    seventh oligonucleotide for detecting an amino acid change from tryptophan to a
    stop codon at codon 1508 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said seventh
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 4643 of the BRCA1 gene,

        an
    eighth oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of one nucleotide at nucleotide
    number 5053 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said eighth oligonucleotide
    specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide number 5053 of
    the BRCA1 gene,
        an
    ninth oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of one nucleotide at nucleotide
    number 5210 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said ninth oligonucleotide
    specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide number 5210 of
    the BRCA1 gene,

        a
    tenth oligonucleotide for detecting an insertion of 12 nucleotides at
    nucleotide number 5396+40 in intron 20 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said
    tenth oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the
    nucleotide number 5396+40 of the BRCA1 gene,
        an
    eleventh oligonucleotide for detecting a deletion of one nucleotide at
    nucleotide number 5150 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said eleventh
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 5150 of the BRCA1 gene,

        a
    twelfth oligonucleotide for detecting an amino acid change from serine to a
    stop codon at codon 1262 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said twelfth
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 3904 of the BRCA1 gene,
        a
    thirteenth oligonucleotide for detecting an amino acid change from tyrosine to
    stop at nucleotide number 903 of a BRCA1 gene sequence, wherein said thirteenth
    oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region encompassing the nucleotide
    number 903 of the BRCA1 gene, and

        a
    fourteenth oligonucleotide for detecting a detecting an amino acid change from
    threonine to proline at nucleotide number 4164 of a BRCA1 gene sequence,
    wherein said fourteenth oligonucleotide specifically hybridizes to a region
    encompassing the nucleotide number 4164 of the BRCA1 gene.

    Myriad and its co-plaintiffs demand a jury
    trial, and request judgment of patent infringement, a preliminary and permanent
    injunction, an accounting and damages, delivery for destruction of all "products"
    that infringe any of the asserted claims, a finding of willful infringement,
    and a request for attorneys' fees, enhanced damages, and costs of suit.

    Perhaps Myriad recognized that the genetic
    diagnostics community would follow the lead of Quest and Counsyl and file
    defensive declaratory judgment suits in a multiplicity of jurisdictions, and
    that it could not afford to wait for the Utah court's decision on its
    preliminary injunction motion.  A
    positive outcome as to the injunction request could be expected to motivate
    potential infringers to the negotiating table, for example.  Myriad is serious about protecting its
    intellectual property, including more than the BRCA tests, and may have decided
    it has much more to lose than the company's patents scheduled to expire over
    the next few years.  Sixteen years of
    patent exclusivity have certainly provided Myriad with the motivation and the
    economic means to protect its franchise.

  •         By Sherri Oslick

    Gavel About Court Report:  Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases.

    University of
    Utah Research Foundation et al. v. GeneDX

    2:13-cv-00954;
    filed October 16, 2013 in the District Court of Utah

    • Plaintiffs: 
    University of Utah Research Foundation; Trustees of the University of
    Pennsylvania; HSC Research and Development Limited Partnership; Endorecherche;
    Myriad Genetics
    • Defendant: 
    GeneDX

    Infringement
    of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,709,999 ("Linked Breast and Ovarian Cancer
    Susceptibility Gene," issued January 20, 1998), 5,747,282 ("17Q-Linked
    Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Gene," issued May 5, 1998),
    5,753,441 (same title, issued May 19, 1998), 5,837,492 ("Chromosome
    13-Linked Breast Cancer Susceptibility Gene," issued November 17, 1998),
    6,033,857 (same title, issued March 7, 2000), 5,654,155 ("Consensus
    sequence of the human BRCA1 gene," issued August 5, 1997), 5,750,400 ("Coding
    sequences of the human BRCA1 gene," issued May 12, 1998), 6,051,379 ("Cancer
    Susceptibility Mutations of BRCA2," issued April 18, 2000), 6,951,721 ("Method
    for Determining the Haplotype of a Human BRCA1 Gene," issued October 4,
    2005), 7,250,497 ("Large Deletions in Human BRCA1 Gene and Use Thereof,"
    issued July 31, 2007), 7,470,510 ("Methods for Diagnosing Cancer and
    Determining a Susceptibility for Developing Cancer," issued December 30,
    2008), 7,622,258 ("Screening Methods and Sequences Relating Thereto,"
    issued November 24, 2009), 7,838,237 (same title, issued November 23, 2010), 7,670,776
    ("MYH Gene Variants and Use Thereof," issued March 2, 2010), 7,563,571
    (same title, issued July 21, 2009), and 6,083,698 ("Cancer Susceptibility
    Mutations of BRCA1," issued July 4, 2000) based on GeneDX's manufacture,
    use, and sale of its BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequencing and Deletion Duplication
    Analysis, BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi Founder Mutation, Comprehensive Cancer
    Panel, Breast/Ovarian Cancer Panel, Pancreatic Cancer Panel, Colorectal Cancer
    Panel, and Endometrial Cancer Panel products. 
    View the complaint here.


    St. Jude
    Children's Research Hospital, Inc. v. Xcovery Holding Company LLC

    3:13-cv-01143;
    filed October 15, 2013 in the Middle District of Tennessee

    St. Jude
    Children's Research Hospital, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

    2:13-cv-02802;
    filed October 11, 2013 in the Western District of Tennessee

    The
    complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,529,925 ("Nucleic
    Acid Sequences and Fusion Proteins Present in Human T(2;5) Lymphoma,"
    issued June 25, 1996), 5,770,421 ("Human ALK Protein Tyrosine Kinase,"
    issued June 23, 1998), and 6,696,548 ("Antibodies for Recognition of ALK
    Protein Tyrosine/Kinase Receptor," issued February 24, 2004) in
    conjunction with defendants' research, development, and evaluation of small
    molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including, LDK378 (Novartis) and X-396
    (Xcovery).  View the Novartis complaint here.


    TET Systems
    GmbH & Co. KG v. ISIS Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    1:13-cv-01695;
    filed October 14, 2013 in the District Court of Delaware

    Infringement
    of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,464,758 ("Tight
    Control of Gene Expression in Eucaryotic Cells by Tetracycline-Responsive Promoters,"
    issued November 7, 1995) and 6,914,124 ("Tetracycline-Regulated
    Transcriptional Activator Fusion Proteins," issued July 5,
    2005) based in Isis' use of HepAD38 cells and plaintiff's TET System.  View the complaint here.

  • CalendarOctober 22, 2013 – Patent 'Trolls' Under Fire: Strategies,
    Tactics and Legislation Impacting University Patents & Licensing
    (Technology
    Transfer Tactics) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern)

    October 22, 2013 – Reverse-Payment License Agreements: A Review
    of the Hatch-Waxman Act Post-Actavis
    (American Bar
    Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division,
    and Center for Professional Development) – 2:00 to 3:30 pm (Eastern)

    October
    23, 2013 – European biotech patent law update (D
    Young & Co) – 4:00 am, 7:00 am, 12:00 pm (EDT)

    October 24, 2013 – Divided Patent Infringement and Inducement:
    Protecting IP Rights — Latest Strategies for Drafting and Prosecuting Claims
    and Allocating Liability
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm
    (EDT)

    October 29, 2013 – IP Due Diligence in M&A Transactions —
    Conducting IP Investigations and Leveraging Results During Deal Negotiations
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    October 29-30, 2013 – European Patent Practice Seminar (John Marshall Law
    School Center for Intellectual Property Law & Kuhnen & Wacker) – Chicago, IL

    October
    31, 2013 – Strategic Use of Patent Reissue After the AIA
    — Correcting Errors in Patents, Determining Whether and When to Pursue a
    Reissue Application, and Mastering the Recapture Rule
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 4-5, 2013 – FDA Boot Camp Devices Edition*** (American Conference
    Institute) – Chicago, IL

    November 4-5, 2013 – Trade Secrets: Protecting Your Intellectual Capital and Confidential
    Business Information
    *** (American Conference
    Institute) – Chicago, IL

    November 6-8, 2013 – 2013 Fall Intellectual Property
    Counsels Committee (IPCC) Conference
    (Biotechnology
    Industry Organization) – Washington, DC

    November 7, 2013 – On Sale and Public Use Bars to Patentability
    After AIA — Minimizing the Risk of Patent Ineligibility or Invalidation
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 8, 2013 – 5th
    Annual RIPL Symposium
    (John Marshall
    Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL)) – Chicago, IL

    November 13,
    2013 – "How University TTOs
    Can Slash Patent Expenses While Improving Patent Quality
    " (Technology
    Transfer Tactics) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern)

    November 14, 2013 – Obviousness Standard After the AIA:
    Leveraging Latest PTO and Court Guidance — Overcoming Challenges of
    Obviousness and Attacks on Patent Validity
    (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT)

    November 17-20, 2013 – Creating and Leveraging Intellectual Property in Developing Countries: A Power Tool for Social and
    Economic Growth
    *** (Companies and IP Commission and National
    IP Management Office of South Africa) – Durban, South Africa

    November
    19, 2013 – PTAB or the District Court: Which
    Is the Better Option When Challenging Patent Validity?
    (McDonnell
    Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP) – 10:00 to 11:15 am (CT)

    November
    19, 2013 – Patenting Biotech Inventions (California
    Healthcare Institute (CHI) and D Young & Co) – San Diego, CA

    November 20, 2013 – Patenting Biotech Inventions (California
    Healthcare Institute (CHI) and D Young & Co) – San Francisco, CA

    December 4, 2013 – Congress on Biotech & Pharma Patenting*** (C5 (UK)) – London, UK

    December 5, 2013 – Forum on Biosimilars*** (C5 (UK)) – London, UK

    December 9-10, 2013 – Patent Infringement Litigation Summit (Legal iQ (IQPC)) – San Francisco, CA

    December 10-11, 2013 – Advanced
    Forum on Patent Litigation
    *** (American Conference
    Institute) – New York, NY

    ***Patent Docs is a media partner of this conference or CLE