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)
You must log in to post a comment.