На главную
Результаты поиска “Teva singulair patent expiration”
The Impact of Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz on Patent Claim Construction in the District Courts
On January 20, 2015, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court announced a new standard for appellate review of patent claim construction. While the Court reaffirmed its holding in Markman that claim construction is a matter for the court, it overturned the Federal Circuit’s holding in Cybor that all aspects of claim construction are subject to de novo review. Panelists are Judge Ronald Whyte, Northern District of California; Prof. Peter Menell, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; and Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella. The moderator is Judge Jeremy D. Fogel, Northern District of California, and Director, Federal Judicial Center. The webcast is introduced by Brenda Baldwin-White, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center. Noting that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) appellate courts “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous,” the Court concluded that Rule 52(a)(6) applies to subsidiary facts found by a district court in patent claim construction. Thus, where the intrinsic evidence (the patent document and its file history) does not resolve the claim construction dispute and the parties disagree as to the meaning of a term to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the district court’s factual determinations with respect to that dispute control unless they are clearly erroneous. The Teva decision presents several immediate questions for district judges. How likely is it that parties will request formal evidentiary hearings as part of the claim construction process? How might district judges determine before such hearings are held whether factual determinations with respect to extrinsic evidence are necessary? How should district judges articulate such determinations so that they may receive appropriate deference on appeal? How can courts manage the process most efficiently to develop an adequate factual record? How should district courts write claim construction rulings in light of the Teva decision? Does this new, at least somewhat more deferential, standard of review affect the incentives for settlement of patent cases in the district court? These and other questions will be the subject of this special Federal Judicial Center webcast. (February 27, 2015)
Просмотров: 1557 United States Courts
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: Oral Argument - April 15, 2013
Facts: The Association for Molecular Pathology along with several other medical associations, doctors and patients sued the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Myriad Genetics to challenge several patents related to human genetics. The patents cover the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and certain mutations that indicate a high risk of developing breast cancer. The suit also challenged several method patents covering diagnostic screening for the genes. Myriad argued that once a gene is isolated, and therefore distinguishable from other genes, it could be patented. By patenting the genes, Myriad had exclusive control over diagnostic testing and further scientific research for the BRCA genes. Petitioners argued that patenting those genes violated §101 the Patent Act because they were products of nature. They also argued that the patents limit scientific progress. §101 limits patents to "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The district court granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners, holding that isolating a gene does not alter its naturally occurring fundamental qualities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that isolated genes are chemically distinct from their natural state in the human body. In March 2012, Petitioners sought certiorari; the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Mayo Collective Services v. Prometheus Laboratories . On remand, the Federal Circuit again upheld the patentability of the BRCA genes. Question: Does §101 of the Patent Act allow patents on human genes? Conclusion: Yes and no. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that naturally occurring gene sequences, and their natural derivative products, are not patent eligible. Under §101 of the Patent Act, the discovery of natural products does not warrant a patent. However, the Court also held that the creation of a new product in a lab exempts that product from being a product of nature. Therefore, gene sequences refined by synthetic processes to create molecules that do not occur naturally are patent eligible. For more information about this case see: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-398 Section 1: 00:00:05 Section 2: 00:22:22 Section 3: 00:33:02 Section 4: 01:03:20 PuppyJusticeAutomated videos are created by a program written by Adam Schwalm. This program is available on github here: https://github.com/ALSchwalm/PuppyJusticeAutomated The audio and transcript used in this video is provided by the Chicago-Kent College of Law under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. See this link for details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Просмотров: 550 PuppyJusticeAutomated