Breathing New Life Into The “Tangential” Exception to Prosecution History Estoppel [Alert]

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the importance of carefully analyzing the prosecutorial history of a patent to determine the reason for the narrowing amendment. If the reason was only tangential to the equivalent at issue, estoppel will not apply.

The Tangential Exception to the Presumption of Prosecution History Estoppel [Alert]

Marilyn Neiman and Martin B. Pavane discuss the Federal Circuit's split decision in Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. ITC.

Why CBD-infused food and beverages could be ripe for a labelling class action [World Trademark Review]

Edward Weisz wrote about the legal landscape for food and beverage manufacturers looking to enter the hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD) market.

Medical Diagnostic Patent Ineligible Under Section 101 [Alert]

Marilyn Neiman and Martin B. Pavane discuss problems with Section 101 and a possible legislative solution expected by early summer.

Experimental-Use Exception [Alert]

Marilyn Neiman and Martin B. Pavane discuss the decision in Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

Guidance on Enforcing and Defending Intellectual Property Rights on Amazon [New York Law Journal]

Edward Weisz and Alanna Miller wrote about Amazon's process for managing infringement and counterfeit allegations.

Inconsistency Between the Patent Term Adjustment Statute and Its Regulations [Alert]

Marilyn Neiman and Martin B. Pavane discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu.

USPTO Issues Revised Guidances Concerning 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 [Alert]

Tom Pontani, Ed Weisz, and Darren Mogil review the USPTO's new guidance for patent-eligible subject matter and claims using functional language to claim computer-implemented inventions.

Confidential Sales of an Invention Do Not Avoid the “On Sale” Bar Under the America Invents Act [Alert]

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

PTAB Not Bound by Federal Circuit’s Findings on Appeal From Preliminary Injunction [Alert]

Marilyn Neiman and Martin B. Pavane discuss PTAB's denial of Aurobindo’s challenge of the validity U.S. Patent No. 6,866,866. Over six years ago, the Federal Circuit found that a substantial question of invalidity had been raised.

When is a Disclosure Not a Disclosure? [Alert]

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in FWP IP APS v. Biogen MA, Inc., an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an interference between FWP and Biogen.

The Use of IPR Institution Denial Decisions in Litigation [Intellectual Property Alert]

Darren Mogil and Marty Pavane discuss the important issue that arises at trial when the PTAB denies institution of an IPR.

Evidence Postdating a Patent’s Priority Date May Be Relevant to Written Description and Enablement [Intellectual Property Alert]

Martin Pavane and Darren Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Its Effect On Biosimilars [Inside Counsel]

Aaron Lukas and Keri Schaubert, associates of Cozen O’Connor’s IP group, discuss the effect that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have on the biopharmaceutical and biosimilar industry.

Dow and Teva: Indefiniteness Defense Can Be Powerful Weapon [Law360]

Marilyn Neiman discusses The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada) (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2015)[2] and Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015)[3].

Will the Inventor of the Handheld Cash Register Ever Cash-In? [Inventors Digest]

Aaron Lukas, an associate in Cozen O'Connor's Intellectual Property Department, authored an article for Inventors Digest titled ‘Will the Inventor of the Handheld Cash Register Ever Cash-In?’ The article addresses recent rulings in cases involving CardSoft and Teva and changes to how patent validity is decided in patent litigation cases.

Patent Depending [Supplier Global Resource]

Supreme Court: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny [Intellectual Property Alert]

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that addressed a “reverse payment” settlement agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company and multiple generic drug companies. The Supreme Court held that a settlement agreement in which a patentee pays an accused infringer not to enter the market – even if the agreement allows market entry before the patent term expires – is not presumptively lawful and is still subject to antitrust scrutiny.

Patent Law and Uneasy Compromises at the U.S. Supreme Court [The Legal Intelligencer]

At oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Supreme Court recently grappled with the question of whether human genes are patentable. Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to capture the justices' sentiment in the lively argument session: "The patent law is filled with uneasy compromises." The compromises that the justices choose will affect the future work of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and shape the path of genetic research in the future.

IP: Obamacare’s Constitutional Impact on Patents [InsideCounsel]

A variety of patent issues arise from the act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

IP: Compound Patents Take a Hit in Delaware District Court [Inside Counsel]

A recent decision from the Delaware District Court held that the composition of matter patent for the drug Baraclude was invalid as obvious. This opinion has drawn immediate attention because it is the first time that a lead compound obviousness challenge has succeeded in a district court since KSR v. Teleflex issued. What this means for inside counsel depends on which side of the aisle you are on, but regardless this decision may provide the beachhead for obviousness attacks where none existed before.

IP: 5 practice tips from the recent Rambus rulings [Inside Counsel]

Four recent decisions shine some light on document retention policies. Case law has not been particularly precise as to when inside counsel should advise clients to begin the tedious—and costly—task of preserving documents for patent litigation. However, the twin 2011 rulings by the Federal Circuit (Micron II and Hynix II) followed by their respective 2013 remand decisions provide a solid primer. Together, these four decisions highlight a proper path for document preservation and the fatal consequences of failing to comply.Inside counsel should take note because document retention (and its converse cousin, spoliation) can negatively impact the enforceability of a company’s intellectual property while establishing a core defense for the accused infringers. This article examines the recent Rambus rulings, particularly the sanctions meted out for document retention violations and spoliation.

138 Cozen O’Connor Attorneys Named to the Best Lawyers in America

Best Lawyers selected 138 Cozen O’Connor lawyers from 21 of the firm’s national offices for inclusion in the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Outside Counsel: Federal Trademarks Still Difficult to Obtain for Cannabis Companies

Edward Weisz discussed with Corporate Counsel how different strains of cannabis can be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under the federal patent law which allows for patents to be places on plants.

Cozen O’Connor’s Western Expansion Continues as the Firm Adds Two Attorneys From Seed IP Law Group to its Seattle Office

In a move that significantly enhances its Seattle office and expands its IP practice on the west coast, Cozen O’Connor today announced two attorneys from Seed IP Law Group LLP, Frank Abramonte & Lorraine Linford, have joined its fast-growing global IP Practice.

100 Cozen O’Connor Lawyers Named to the Best Lawyers in America

Lawyers were selected for inclusion in the 2018 edition based on a rigorous peer-review that has been developed and defined for more than 30 years.

Sixty-Two Cozen O’Connor Lawyers Named to the Best Lawyers in America

Sixty-two Cozen O’Connor lawyers from 13 of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

Kyle Vos Strache and George Bibikos Named 2015 Lawyers on the Fast Track

Two Cozen O'Connor attorneys are among those recognized by The Legal Intelligencer as Lawyers on the Fast Track.

Marilyn Neiman Quoted in Intellectual Property Watch Regarding Anti-Patent Troll Law

Marilyn Neiman, a member in the firm's Intellectual Property practice group, is quoted in Intellectual Property Watch in an article discussing the Innovation Act, and how this bill aimed at patent trolls would cause many changes to US patent law. Marilyn also discusses the effects this would have on patent litigation.

Edward Weisz Discusses New Software Systems Employed by the USPTO in FedScoop Article

In an article titled "Patent Office CIO Aims for Culture Change Amid Systems Updates," Edward Weisz, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Intellectual Property Department discusses the benefits of new software systems employed by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Protecting Your Idea: Should You Patent It?

In an article titled "Protecting Your Idea: Should You Patent It?" Edward Weisz, a member of the Intellectual Property Department, discusses the timing of filing a patent application or a provisional patent application.