Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 15 June 2011 from IP Think Tank

Here is Think IP Strategy’s weekly selection of top Pharma & Biotech intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet.

 

Highlights this week included:

Supreme Court clarifies ownership rights in federally funded inventions under the Bayh-Dole Act: Stanford v. Roche (Filewrapper) (IPBiz) (Patent Baristas) (Patent Docs) (IPBiz) (Patent Law Center) (IAM) (Patently-O) (Patent Law Practice Center) (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Property, intangible)

 

Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored.

 

General

Big Pharma accepts differential pricing – FINALLY! (Spicy IP)

BIO and PhRMA commend Commerce Secretary for resisting proposed changes to Global Patent System (Patent Docs)

Australia: Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Copyright) Bill 2011 has commenced! (updated) (IP Whiteboard)

Canada: Study debunks Chamber of Commerce claims on Canadian patent law (Michael Geist)

EU: Opinion of the AG for C-125/10 is out! Merck & Co Inc v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (The SPC blog) (The SPC blog) (The SPC blog)

Monaco: Monaco, France and SPCs (The SPC blog)

US: Supreme Court clarifies ownership rights in federally funded inventions under the Bayh-Dole Act: Stanford v. Roche (Filewrapper) (IPBiz) (Patent Baristas) (Patent Docs) (IPBiz) (Patent Law Center) (IAM) (Patently-O) (Patent Law Practice Center) (IP Spotlight) (Patently-O) (Property, intangible)

US: Joint Statement of BIO, AAU, ACE, APLU, AUTM and COGR says still friends after Stanford v. Roche (Patent Baristas) (Patently BIOtech)

US: They’re at it again… Australian biotech company Genetic Technologies pursues alleged infringers in the US (IP Whiteboard) (Patent Docs)

US: Debunking the myth: Your genes are patented (Patently BIOtech)

US: Debunking the myth: ‘gene patents’ are not necessary for healthcare innovation (Patently BIOtech)

US: Competition regulators continue their campaign against pharmaceutical companies (IP Whiteboard)

US: The Public Patent Foundation takes on agricultural biotechnology: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association Et al. v. Monsanto (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog)

US: Cardiovascular Biotherapeutics files patent infringement suit against Phage Biotechnology over development of and FDA approval application for wound healing application (Patent Docs)

US: Biota Scientific files for reversal of BPAI decision affirming final rejection of patent entitled ‘Compounds and Compositions for Administration Via Oral Inhalation or Insufflation’ : Biota Scientific Management Pty Ltd. v. Kappos (Patent Docs)

 

Products

Antara (Fenofibrate) US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A. et al. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. (Patent Docs)

Avendia (Rosiglitazone maleate) – Israel: Is Smith Kline Beecham’s patent for Rosiglitazone Maleate invalidated by an earlier patent claiming Rosiglitazone and its salts? (IP Factor)

AzaSite (Azithromycin)US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: InSite Vision Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Azilect (Rasagiline) US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Teva Neuroscience, Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Detrol LA (Tolterodine) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Pfizer, Inc. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Patent Docs)

Escitalopram – Australia: Patent office grants 121 month extension of time: Alphapharm Pty Ltd & Ors v H. Lundbeck A/S (IP Whiteboard) (Patentology)

Focalin XR (Dexmethylphenidate) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Celgene Corp. et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Patent Docs)

Focalin XR (Dexmethylphenidate) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Elan Corp. et al. v. IntelliPharmaCeutics Corp. et al. (Patent Docs)

Gemzar (Gemcitabine) – ALJ Rogers rules on motion to quash in Certain Gemcitabine (337-TA-766) (ITC Law Blog)

Oestrin 24 Fe (Norethindrone acetate, Ethinyl estradiol) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Warner Chilcott Co. v. Mylan, Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Oracea (Doxycyline) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Galderma Laboratories Inc. et al. v. Impax Laboratories Inc. (Patent Docs)

Revlimid (Lenalidomide) – Australia: Celgene denied term extension on Revlimid patent (Patentology)

Silenor (Doxepin) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed: Somaxon Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Strattera (Atomoxetine)- US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hetero Drugs Ltd. et al. (Patent Docs)

Treximet (Sumatriptan, Naproxen) – US: patent infringement complaint filed against Mylan, Ethypharm in response to Para IV certification: Pozen Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE (Patent Docs)

Valcyte (Valganciclovir) – US: patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (Patent Docs)

Valsartan – Norway: Oslo District Court : Assessment of infringement to be made as of time of infringement not as of priority date: Novartis v. Actavis (Kluwer Patent Blog)

Viagra (Sildenafil) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Xeloda (Capecitabine) – US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Mylan Inc. et al. (Patent Docs)

Zemplar (Paricalcitol)US: Patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Ben Venue Laboratories Inc. (Patent Docs)

Zymar (Gatifloxacin) – US: patent infringement complaint filed in response to Para IV certification: Senju Pharmaceutical Co. et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al. (Patent Docs)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: