Eric M. Fraser is an attorney with Osborn Maledon in Phoenix.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the drug company Amgen, which had sued Sanofi for infringing Amgen’s patent on antibodies that lower LDL cholesterol, sometimes called “bad” cholesterol.
During oral argument in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi on Monday, the justices explored how to write an opinion on patent enablement when the parties agree on almost everything about the legal standard. “Enablement” is the requirement that a patent must enable others to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
Two pharmaceutical giants head to the Supreme Court on Monday in a dispute over a patent covering cholesterol-lowering antibodies. In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the justices will consider whether Amgen’s patent is too broad to be valid under federal patent rules.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowed the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel, which prohibits an inventor from assigning a patent to someone and then later contending in litigation that the patent is invalid. By a vote of 5-4, the court rejected calls to completely abandon the doctrine.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its opinion in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case sought to abolish the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel, which prohibits an inventor from challenging the validity of the patent on the inventor’s own invention.
The justices explored possible ways to limit the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel during oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. on Wednesday. The doctrine works like this.
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. about whether to abolish the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel.
Today the Supreme Court dismissed Salt River Project v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc. at the request of the parties. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari in this case on the question of whether a district-court order denying antitrust state-action immunity may be appealed immediately, or only after a final judgment.
Electrical lines along a Salt River Project canal [Editor’s Note: On Monday, March 12, the Supreme Court scheduled this case for oral argument on April 17 at 1 p.m.]
Eric M. Fraser practices appellate, antitrust, and intellectual property law at Osborn Maledon, P.A. State licensing boards composed of market participants do not enjoy automatic immunity from antitrust laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
Eric M. Fraser practices appellate, antitrust, and intellectual property law at Osborn Maledon, P.A. The Supreme Court is wary of allowing a state to bestow immunity from federal antitrust laws on a group of professionals regulating themselves without supervision from the state.
Next week, on October 14, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. This case presents the question of when a state agency composed of industry competitors is exempt from the federal antitrust laws.