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: Affirms Preliminary Injunction on Cancer Assays
On July 12, 2024, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Moore and Judges Taranto and Chen issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Judge Moore, in Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Labs, Inc., Case Nos. 2024-1324; 2024-1409. The panel affirmed the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina's grant of a preliminary injunction barring NeoGenomics from making, using, selling, advertising or distributing its RaDaR assay. Slip Op. at 2.
Natera, Inc. is a "research-focused healthcare compan[y] operating in the oncology testing industry" that "manufacture[s] products used for early detection of cancer relapse." Id. Natera asserted two patents (U.S. Patent No. 11,519,035 (the '035 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 11,530,454 (the '454 Patent)) related to methods of amplifying and detecting cell-free DNA and circulating tumor DNA against NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (NeoGenomics) Id. at 2-3. While "Natera uses the methods claimed in the '035 and '454 patents in its Signatera product," "NeoGenomics offers a competing product under the brand name RaDaR." Id. at 3. Both Signatera and RaDaR are used to "identify ctDNA within the bloodstream to assess the efficacy of cancer treatment and the risk of cancer recurrence." Id.
"Natera sued NeoGenomics alleging RaDaR infringed the '035 and '454 patents and moved for a preliminary injunction." Id. at 4. The district court "granted the preliminary injunction because it determined Natera satisfied the requirements for injunctive relief, including likelihood of success on the merits of its '035 patent infringement claim." Id. The panel reviewed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and explained that to "obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must establish likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood it will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in its favor, and an injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 5-6.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.