Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Rules That Novo Nordisk Misled USPTO
In Novo Nordisk Pharms, Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp., No. 04-1581, 2005 WL 2443857 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that U.S. Patent 5,633,352 (“the '352 patent”) is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision that claim 1 of the '352 patent was invalid due to anticipation and vacated the judgment of invalidity with respect to claim 2.
The '352 patent covers a process for producing human growth hormone (“hGH”) protein in E. Coli bacteria using the enzyme DAP I through recombinant DNA techniques. The '352 patent issued from U.S. Application 402,286 (“the '286 application”), filed on March 10, 1995, which claimed priority to a 1983 PCT application, which in turn claimed priority to a Danish application filed on Dec. 10, 1982. The 1983 PCT application discloses the use of an enzyme, known as LAP, to produce hGH from a pre-hGH fusion protein. On Nov. 12, 1982, Novo Nordisk (“Novo”) filed U.S. Application 07/959,856 (“the '856 application”), which was the first in a series of applications that claimed priority to an application filed on Dec. 10, 1982.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?