According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 5th ruling in Thaler v. Vidal, No. 2021-2347 (Fed. Cir. 2022), artificial intelligence (“AI”) cannot be named as an inventor on a U.S. patent application. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit considered whether an inventor of a U.S. patent can be anything other … Continue Reading
The German Constitutional Court issued a landmark decision with implications for many companies doing business in Europe on July 9, 2021. For decades, the European Commission and EU member states strived to create a pan-European Unified Patent Court (UPC). After overcoming many hurdles, any sensible commentator will be cautious in making statements about the future … Continue Reading
Germany recently passed a reform bill for the Patent Act (PatG) and its new provisions will likely be coming into force sooner rather than later. The reform is particularly relevant for companies from the life sciences sector, which often litigate in this pro-patentee jurisdiction. The modifications to PatG address: Confidentiality concerns. New section 145a PatG … Continue Reading
Global life sciences companies have been carefully watching the European effort to launch a Unified Patent Court (UPC). As we discussed in a previous post, the UPC would have a profound effect on how life sciences companies set about their patent strategies – from filing through exploitation to enforcement. Efforts to implement the UPC, however, … Continue Reading
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld decisions by the European Medicines Agency in two identical rulings on January 22, 2020. In the cases of PT Therapeutics International v. EMA (C-175/18 P) and MSD Animal Health Innovation and Intervet International v EMA (C-178/18 P), the decision was upheld to grant access to … Continue Reading
By Anette Gaertner and Jonathan Diehl on Posted in EME Life Sciences
Germany is one of the most important patent litigation jurisdictions in Europe, making developments in its patent law very important to life sciences companies operating globally. In recent years, the number of cases regarding claims for the transfer of patents has risen steadily in Germany. If an application is filed by someone who is not … Continue Reading
Did you know the U.K. patents system penalizes a failure to record a patent transaction at the Patent Office by depriving a successful plaintiff of its entitlement to recover its full legal costs in any subsequent infringement litigation on that patent? It’s a little-known trap for the unwary, and the subject of our London partner … Continue Reading
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 https://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
