Good news for companies patenting self-replicating technology?

While predicting a Supreme Court decision is never a safe bet, the oral argument in Bowman v. Monsanto suggests that the result will be welcome news for companies patenting self-replicating technology (like the biotechnology industry). On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Bowman v. Monsanto, which we told you about on February 12. The […]

Lead Compound Requirement: Not so rigid after all?

On February 11, 2013, the District Court of Delaware ruled that U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244 patent to entecavir (the active ingredient in Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Baraclude, which treats hepatitis B viral infections) is invalid for obviousness. This case marks the first instance where a court has invalidated a molecule patent based on obviousness. The lead compound […]

A Claim Construction Lesson – Be Careful What You Ask For

A recent case is a reminder of a claim construction lesson that all litigants should keep in mind. Last Friday, Novartis AG’s Alcon Inc. subsidiary asked the Supreme Court to reverse a Federal Circuit decision in favor of Apotex relating to Alcon’s Patanol (olopatadine) ophthalmic formulation. The case is interesting because of its unusual procedural […]

Supreme Court Patent Exhaustion Case Could Affect Biopharmaceuticals

A Supreme Court patent exhaustion case could affect biopharmaceuticals. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (Docket No. 11-796), a case that may narrow patentees’ rights in self-replicating technologies. The self-replicating technology at issue in Bowman is genetically modified seeds, but it is not difficult to imagine broader implications […]