Medical Device Litigation Archives

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute
Gallery
Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Cyber Risk Litigation, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Risk Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation|Tags: biotech, biotechnology, emerging litigation, mass torts, Medical Device Litigation, privacy liability, torts|

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]

James Beck on the Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions)

September 21st, 2020|Categories: HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes|Tags: class action, drug device blog, drug litigation, james smith reed smith, mass torts, Medical Device Litigation|

Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst Reed Smith LLP Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions) We’ll be very clear – as we have before: We don’t like most class actions. Indeed, if given our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class actions for damages, altogether. But that’s not in the offing anytime soon. Today, we offer a class action decision that we think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the problem. In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court came up with one possible solution to the class action “objector problem.” What’s that? Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often “objectors” come out of the woodwork. While these objectors purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they want is money to make them go away. Or, as described in Pearson: We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation known colloquially as “objector blackmail.” The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense. A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for approval by the district court. A few class members object to the settlement but [...]

Drug & Device Defense Forum | Oct. 15, 2018 | New York

May 13th, 2018|Categories: HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation|Tags: Attorney Ethics, CLE, cyber security, cyber security for medical devices, Dechert, demonstrative evidence, drug liability, FDA approval, FDA guidelines, FDA regulation, FDA warnings, goodell devries, jim frederick, jury presentation, lawyers social media, legal ethics, Litigation Financing, litigation funding, mass torts, medical device breach, Medical Device Litigation, medical devices, megan grossman, michelle yeary, personal jurisdiction, pharmaceutical liability, Product Liability, segal mcambridge|

Sorry! This event has been cancelled. We had a good run for several years but all good things and all that. Look for the sessions to magically appear as part of our new webinar series. --Tom Hagy Emerging legal and business issues facing the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. Conference Chairs Megan Grossman Shareholder Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd. Michelle Hart Yeary Of Counsel Dechert LLP James A. Frederick Partner Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann LLP When Oct. 15, 2018 Where Convene Well&, 151 W 42nd St Times Square, New York Sponsors Hotel Accomodations The Knickerbocker Hotel 6 Times Square, SE corner of 42nd & Broadway Weblink Reservations. $325 Premier King For 3 days pre & post conf reservations, contact Jenny Thorpe | 212-204-4976| jthorne@theknickerbocker.com Ask for "HB Litigation" conference rate. Cut-Off Date: Sept 23 CLE This event will be eligible for CLE Conference Registration Rates • $195 for in-house counsel at pharmaceutical, medical device and insurance companies. • $495 for attorneys in private practice • $395 for attorneys from faculty firms (promo code FAC395) Contact Us (484) 844-0437 Send us an Email Speaking Proposals Send us your idea Ideas@LitigationConferences.com Or go online: Faculty Questions: Faculty@LitigationConferences.com Faculty Dinner | [...]