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 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 [...]

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: , , , , , |

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 [...]

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

May 13th, 2018|Categories: HB Tort Notes, Past Conferences, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

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: [...]

Go to Top