-
Jan 23, 2025 | 
mondaq.com | Megan R. Mahoney |Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss apatent infringement complaint involving gene editing technologythat sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of theHatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee'scomplaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimedtechnology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a"patented invention" that were "reasonablyrelated" to an FDA submission.
-
Jan 20, 2025 | 
jdsupra.com | Rachel Elsby |Matthew Hartman |Megan R. Mahoney
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.
-
Jan 17, 2025 | 
akingump.com | Megan R. Mahoney |Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby
By: Megan R. Mahoney, Matthew George Hartman, Rachel J. ElsbyThe District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act.
-
Aug 13, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Jason Weil |Rachel Elsby
In a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated for ODP based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring claim from the same family.
-
Aug 13, 2024 | 
akingump.com | Jason Weil |Rachel Elsby
By: Jason Weil, Rachel J. ElsbyIn a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated for ODP based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring claim from the same family.
-
Jul 11, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Ryan Dowell |Rachel Elsby |Matthew Hartman
In an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held that by presenting cumulative financial data across different products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant provided insufficient evidence for a court to evaluate domestic industry for any individual patent. And as a result, the court affirmed the ITC’s determination that the appellant failed to satisfy its burden to establish a domestic industry for any of its asserted patents.
-
Jul 11, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby |Ryan Dowell
In an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held
that by presenting cumulative financial data across different
products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant
provided insufficient evidence for a court to evaluate domestic
industry for any individual patent. And as a result, the court
affirmed the ITC's determination that the appellant failed to
satisfy its burden to establish a domestic industry for any of its
asserted patents.
-
Jul 10, 2024 | 
akingump.com | Ryan Dowell |Matthew Hartman |Rachel Elsby
By: Ryan Dowell, Matthew George Hartman, Rachel J. ElsbyIn an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held that by presenting cumulative financial data across different products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant provided insufficient evidence for a court to evaluate domestic industry for any individual patent.
-
Jun 28, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Rachel Elsby |Jason Weil
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District of
Delaware dismissing a case for failing to plead induced
infringement because the totality of the evidence raised fact
questions that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The
Federal Circuit expressed doubts about whether appellee's
FDA-approved label alone, which carved out the claimed indication,
was sufficient to actively induce.
-
Jun 26, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Rachel Elsby |Jason Weil
The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District of Delaware dismissing a case for failing to plead induced infringement because the totality of the evidence raised fact questions that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit expressed doubts about whether appellee’s FDA-approved label alone, which carved out the claimed indication, was sufficient to actively induce.
