Oil States: SCOTUS Preserves IPR Status Quo

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 7-2 majority, decided Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, holding that Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. Article III vests the “judicial power of the United States” in the Article III courts. In holding that IPR does not violate Article III, the Court construed the grant of a patent as.. Read More

The Federal Circuit Weighs in on CRISPR

Gene editing was once quite difficult.  Though it was not impossible to insert a new sequence of DNA into a bacterium and measure the effects, as recently as a decade ago, the process consumed unsustainably large amounts unlucky graduate students’ time and effort.  In 2012, a groundbreaking paper from the group led by Dr. Jennifer Doudna at the University of California demonstrated that the bacterial immune protein CRISPR Cas-9 could revolutionize gene editing… Read More

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. and Its Implications

Background of the Case:   Sandoz Inc v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664 (2017) is a case that involved statutory construction of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA” or “Biosimilars Act”), which is codified in 42 U.S.C. § 262. The BPCIA is quite similar to the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments which created procedures to facilitate more.. Read More

The Bayh-Dole Act Has Been Successful in Stimulating a Market for Federally Funded Inventions, Now It’s Time to Bring Those Inventions to the Public

The federal government has proved to be ineffective at bringing publically funded discoveries to the public The Bayh-Dole Act of the 1980’s was intended to maximize the public’s return on federally funded research by getting inventions into the hands of companies to bring them to the market (for a general introduction). The goal was to maximize the public’s return on our investments by placing IP rights in the hands of Research institutions, who.. Read More

Will Allergan’s Questionable New Licensing Tactic Kill Inter Partes Review?

In 2015, Allergan, a powerhouse pharmaceutical company, filed suit against generic companies for patent infringement. Allergan, Inc. v. TEVA Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2017) hosted by ipwatchdog.com. The claim alleged infringement of patents that cover Allergan’s blockbuster eye drug, Restasis. In hopes of invalidating the Restasis patents, defendants filed administrative challenges in front of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) using a procedure known as inter partes.. Read More

Video Games: A Growing Market and its Intellectual Property Needs

The video game industry is a rapidly growing market. The rising prize pools of video game tournaments and the popularity of streaming personalities are just a couple of the signs of this growth. Game revenues are expected to hit $108.9 billion in 2017, an increase of nearly $8 billion from 2016. That is a near eight percent increase, with smartphone and tablet gaming seeing a twenty percent increase. The global player base is.. Read More

Time to Wake Up: Comparing Statutory Proposals to Escape Alice’s Looking Glass

By changing the word “art” to “process” in the 1952 Patent Act, Congress introduced one of the first changes to the statutory language of PSM since Thomas Jefferson penned the original in 1793. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 at 309 (1980). Since then, patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has remained unaltered by Congress.   However, over 200 years of judicial interpretation led to the development of specially created judicial.. Read More

SCOTUS Decision in TC Heartland and Its Implications for Patent Venue

Background of the Case: Kraft brought a patent infringement suit against TC Heartland in the District of Delaware. Kraft is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Illinois. TC Heartland is incorporated and headquartered in Indiana. TC Heartland sought to transfer the case to the Southern District of Indiana, invoking the patent infringement venue provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement.. Read More

The CRISPR Patents and Their Hindrance to Innovation

One of the major battles going on in patent law is that concerning the CRISPR gene-editing technology. Basically, this technology allows for the modification of genes in living organisms. As one can imagine, if this technology could be perfected for use in human DNA, the scientific and business possibilities are vast and valuable. Involving this technology is a patent battle between the University of California Berkeley and the Broad Institute, which includes Harvard.. Read More

Lying In Wait: Patent Prosecution After the Elimination of Laches

In their March 21 decision on SCA Hygiene Products AB v. First Quality Baby Products LLC, the Supreme Court eliminated the laches defense in patent prosecution cases, potentially making it easier for patent-holders to “lie in wait” in order to obtain greater damages. The decision perhaps flew under the radar in the wake of the Varsity Brands decision, but could have a wide-ranging financial impact on patent-holders in the future. In patent infringement.. Read More