Archive: January 2015

1
Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation
2
Now Trending: #jesuischarlie Trade Marks
3
Continuation of the Dispute Between “SUPERGLUE” and “SUPER GLUE”: Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union
4
IP Rights in Big Data
5
ODAC Committee Votes to License Sandoz’s Zarxio®
6
Big Data Speaks Loudly and Carries a Big Stick

Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation

The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not indefinite with respect to the phrase “molecular weight.” During trial, the District Court construed the phrase “molecular weight” by considering expert declarations from both parties relating to different ways to calculate a molecular weight, and how the specification supported or conflicted with each of the ways to calculate molecular weight. The District Court credited Teva’s expert declaration at the expense of Sandoz’s expert declaration.

To read the full alert, click here.

Now Trending: #jesuischarlie Trade Marks

Can you Register a Rallying cry or Trending Slogan as a Trade Mark in Australia?

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, supporters of free speech and freedom of expression rallied behind the phrase JE SUIS CHARLIE. Within two days, “#jesuischarlie” had been tweeted over five million times.  Less than a week after the shooting, trade mark applications for both “Charlie Hebdo” and “jesuischarlie” were filed in Australia. This follows as many as 50 applications for the phrase in France and similar applications in the United States, European Union and Belgium. Read More

Continuation of the Dispute Between “SUPERGLUE” and “SUPER GLUE”: Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union

A decision issued recently by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-91/14 P) (Court of Justice) concluded another stage in a dispute between Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław, Lepiarz Alicja sp.j. (PH Medox) and OHIM and Henkel Corp. (an intervening party). The dispute concerned the following graphic designation:

 

Read More

IP Rights in Big Data

In our last Big Data blog posting, we cautioned that the protection of the intellectual property rights (IP) in Big Data may warrant its own focus.  While there are legitimate concerns about finding IP  in data, because data may be an inert lump of code, bits, or pieces of information, it is worthwhile to think about the different kinds of IP that arise in conjunction with and in the context of Big Data.  This blog entry focuses on the IP opportunities ‘in relation to’ Big Data.

Read More

ODAC Committee Votes to License Sandoz’s Zarxio®

Sandoz Inc. filed the first biosimilar application under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act on July 24, 2014 for a biosimilar version of Amgen Inc.’s Neupogen® (filgrastim). The FDA issued a Briefing Document for the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting held January 7, 2015 concluding that Sandoz’s biosimilar, referred to as EP2006 in the FDA’s Briefing Document, is highly similar to and has no clinically meaningful differences from Neupogen®.

To read the full alert, click here.

Big Data Speaks Loudly and Carries a Big Stick

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” connotes a policy of beginning gently but holding a decisive weapon in reserve.  Big Data doesn’t do that.  When Big Data ‘speaks,’ it tends to blurt out its conclusion and can have an immediate impact, deserved or undeserved, because Big Data is not based on careful statistical sampling and is not aimed at determining causation.  Big Data correlates masses of good, bad and indifferent data, ie, it can be ‘messy’ and its correlations are not necessarily accurate relative to a desired question.  So what will happen when ‘the data’ indicates an outcome that people believe or act on because the ‘data says so?’  That is the topic of this blog. Read More

Copyright © 2020, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.