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 Finds District Court Erred in Analysis of Motivation to Combine Prior Art References, Yet Affirms Ultimate Conclusion of Non-obviousness Due to the Lack of a Reasonable Expectation of Success
On May 13, 2019, Federal Circuit Judges Stoll, Plager, and Clevenger issued an opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd., Case No. 2018-1434. The issue on appeal was whether the United States District Court for the District of Delaware erred in holding that claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,410,131 ('131 patent) would not have been obvious in view of the prior art. Upon concluding that the district court did not err, the panel affirmed the district court's ruling.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis AG (collectively, Novartis) own the '131 patent, which claims methods of using the compound everolimus to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (“RCC). Slip op. at 2. West-Ward's predecessor in interest filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to manufacture and sell generic versions of Novartis' Afinitor product (which contains the active ingredient everolimus), and Novartis responded by filing claims of patent infringement. Id. The parties stipulated that the ANDA infringes claims 1-3 of the '131 patent, and a bench trial proceeded on invalidity. Id. at 9. The district court ruled that West-Ward failed to prove that the patent claims are obvious, and West-Ward appealed. Id. at 2.
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?