With the Unified Patent Court now stalled for at least the near future, U.S. life sciences companies will continue to face the question of where to bring patent infringement cases in Europe. The German courts offer a variety of potential advantages for such companies. Two-thirds of all patent infringement cases in Europe are brought to … Continue Reading
As we discussed in a prior post, the introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be a significant change to the European patent landscape and will have a profound effect on how life sciences companies set about their patent strategies – from filing through exploitation to enforcement. Consequently, life sciences companies should take note … Continue Reading
The introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is undoubtedly the most significant change to the European patent landscape since the European Patent Convention of 1973. It will have a profound effect on how life sciences companies set about their patent strategies – from filing through exploitation to enforcement. Leaving aside the inevitable delays to … Continue Reading
European Patent Office oppositions are a very powerful way of litigating newly granted patents. In reality these are pan-European revocation proceedings, with profound strategic significance for life sciences companies – this is the only way through which all national parts of a European patent can be revoked simultaneously in one set of proceedings. Unsurprisingly, EPO … Continue Reading
The January 25, 2015 edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette featured an article in which Reed Smith partner Chris Healy commented on the dramatic rise in popularity of 3D printing technology and the legal issues that have come about – and may arise in the future – as a result of this trend. The article, “3D … Continue Reading
Reed Smith’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog recently featured a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, where the court ruled five-to-three that reverse payments, also called pay-for-delay settlements, can violate antitrust laws and are subject to antitrust review under the rule-of-reason. As reverse payments are commonly used by branded drug … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s new Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., et al., 563 U.S. ___ (2011) decision has significant implications for federally-funded inventions and any patents that may result. As Christopher Rissetto, Louis DePaul, and Stephanie Giese explain in this new alert, each federal government contractor and grantee … Continue Reading
The Recorder (via Law.Com) has an article today discussing the Fifth Circuit's en banc decision In re Volkswagen of America Inc. and its ramifications for patent litigation.
The case involves the often-discussed (some would say notorious) Eastern District of Texas. The Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast of Texas are repeat offenders on the American Tort Reform Association's "Judicial Hellholes" list. Both patent and product liability cases historically have made their way because of the plaintiff-friendly nature of this jurisdiction, and judges in the Eastern District often rejected venue challenges under the reasoning that if a product was available in the jurisdiction, that was enough for venue--even if no other connection linked the case to the Eastern District of Texas. Use the link below to view the entire entry.
Check out our most recent posts at http://www.lifescienceslegalupdate.com, including another post written today, "Recent Post-Riegel and OTC Drug Preemption Cases".… Continue Reading
Lawyers representing clients as plaintiffs in litigation often overlook the fact that a cross-complaint or counterclaim may give rise to an obligation by the client’s liability insurer to provide a defense. A recent decision in favor of Hewlett-Packard, awarding it $51 million, serves as a reminder that insurance coverage must be examined when a cross-complaint … Continue Reading