Readers of this blog may recall that in the past year, I wrote extensively about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Oil States v. Greene’s Energy. But I paid little attention to another important case decided around the same time: SAS Institute v. Iancu. Oil States centered on whether the USPTO’s inter partes review
Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Highlights USPTO Constraints
Credit: Federal Circuit (what it looks like to argue there)
One week ago, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 18-1638 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018)–by all accounts, one of this decade’s most important decisions concerning the America Invents Act and the
PTAB-Lovers Rejoice; IPR Lives!
Five months ago to the day, I predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) as constitutional in Oil States v. Greene Energy. On April 24, 2018, the Court so-held.
Back in November, the questions at
The USPTO Goes to Washington
Last week, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held its oversight hearing regarding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). New USPTO Director Andrei Iancu testified (see his written statement here), for the first time in his new official capacity. It was an interesting hearing–a video recording of the hearing is available here (starting at
Patent IPRs and Allergan’s Sovereign Immunity Defense
— Jessica Gutierrez Alm, Attorney
In an age of rising healthcare costs, pharmaceutical companies can be an easy target in calls for patent reform. Patent protection helps drug manufacturers recoup their investment in developing the new drug,. It also prevents generic manufacturers from releasing the same drug formulation at lower cost. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides