#Lisa Larrimore

[groundbreaaking]

Pharmaceutical Profits and Public Health Are Not Incompatible

By Daniel Hemel and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette We need the capital and creativity of the private sector to take on the coronavirus. Published: April 8, 2020 at 05:00AM via NYT Opinion https://ift.tt/2UPhp26

[marymosley]

Our Summer Speaker Series: COVID-19 and Innovation Policy

By Jason Rantanen

The Iowa Innovation, Business & Law Center is hosting a summer speaker series featuring 30-minute talks by some of the leading legal scholars writing on innovation and COVID-19.  All talks will be via Zoom webinar on Thursdays at 3:30 ET/2:30 CT/ 1:30 MT/12:30 PT. (starting this Thursday).

Our speakers are:

June 25: Jacob Sherkow on COVID-19 Related Drug Shortages and Innovation Policy

July 2: Nicholson Price on Public Funding and COVID-19 Innovation

July 9: Sapna Kumar on Patents, Pharma, and the Pandemic

July 16: Rachel E. Sachs on Reimbursement Policy and Innovation Incentives for COVID-19

July 23: Lisa Larrimore Ouellette on Innovation Policy Pluralism and COVID-19.

The link for these talks is https://uiowa.zoom.us/j/98761682648

I hope you’ll mark your calendars and are able to join us!

  Our Summer Speaker Series: COVID-19 and Innovation Policy published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Paul Arena: Parallax Health Sciences Announces Patent Enforcement Initiative (Source: Yahoo Finance)

Corey M. Horowitz: Network-1 Receives Two New Patents from U.S. Patent Office Expanding Its Cox Portfolio To Include 35 Issued Patents (Source: Yahoo Finance)

Ian Lopez: Apple Handed Mixed Rulings in Bids to Ax Qualcomm Patents (1) (Source: Bloomberg Law)

Nat Levy: Solar-Powered Surface? Microsoft Wins Patent for Device Cover Lined with Charging Panels (Source: Geek Wire)

Source: FPO

Commentary and Journal Articles:

Prof. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette and Andrew Tutt: How Do Patent Incentives Affect University Researchers? (Source: SSRN)

Prof. Mark P. McKenna and Prof. Brett M. Frischmann: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Failures and Institutions in Context (S0urce: SSRN)

Prof. Daniel Benoliel: The Impact of Institutions on Patent Propensity Across Countries (Source: SSRN)

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP

Myers Bigel, P.A.

Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti

MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP

Harrity & Harrity, LLP

The Farrell Law Firm, P.C.

Klintworth & Rozenblat IP

Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Jan Wolfe: Apple Defeats Speaker Patent Case at Fed Circuit (Source: Reuters)

Mihir Zaveri LeBron James Tried to Trademark ‘Taco Tuesday,’ but Got Swatted Away (Source: The New York Times)

Adel Fares: Nextleaf Solutions Granted U.S. Patent for THC and CBD Oil Processing (Source: Yahoo Finance)

Mike Wuerthele: Apple Working on Biometric Identification Beyond Touch ID and Face ID (Source: Apple Insider)

Source: USPTO

Commentary and Journal Articles:

Prof. Kal Raustiala: Intellectual Property in the Information Age: American & Chinese Perspectives (Source: SSRN)

Dr. Patrick Russell Goold: Patent Accidents: Questioning Strict Liability in Patent Law (Source: SSRN)

Prof. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette and Rebecca Weires: University Patenting: Is Private Law Serving Public Values? (Source: SSRN)

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP

Lee & Hayes

RPX Corporation

Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Oliff PLC

Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

Hikma Case Set for Supreme Court Consideration

by Dennis Crouch

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Supreme Court 2019)

Briefing is now complete in this important eligibility case pending before the Supreme Court. Hikma’s petition presents the following question:

Whether patents that claim a method of medically treating a patient automatically satisfy Section 101 of the Patent Act, even if they apply a natural law using only routine and conventional steps

Hickma’s question clearly mischaracterizes the Federal Circuit opinion – a common approach these days.  In its opposition brief, the patentee Vanda calls-out the intentional error:

Hikma’s Petition wrongly asserts that the Federal Circuit declared all method-of-treatment claims to be “automatically” patent-eligible under Section 101. . . [Hickma’s] Question is not presented by the decision below or any other decision.

Although Hickma does a good job of nit-picking, the underlying reality is important — the Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda is not easily reconciled with its Ariosa decision or the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus.  And, the Federal Circuit and USPTO have effectively green-lighted patents on methods of treatment that would be ineligible if recharacterized as methods of diagnosis or creating a treatment plan.

Petition for a writ of certiorari

Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property and Innovation Professors, Engine Advocacy, et al.

Brief amici curiae of The Association for Accessible Medicines and Certain Individual Companies

Brief of respondent Vanda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in opposition

Reply to Brief in Opposition of Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc

The amicus briefs in this case all focus on the same issue — arguing that the Federal Circuit’s Vanda decision conflicts with Mayo and Flook. The Law Prof brief explains:  “The Federal Circuit’s decision effectively overturns this court’s precedents, thwarts the proper development of patent eligibility law, and will lead to countless improperly issued patents.”  The Law Professor Brief was filed by Stanford’s IP Clinic – although neither Mark Lemley nor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette signed-on.  Professors Josh Sarnoff (DePaul) and Katherine Strandburg (NYU) substantially drafted the brief.  Top pharma-patent litigator Douglass Hochstetler (KelleyDrye) filed the AAM brief.

= = =

In a previous post, I explained that Vanda’s drug dosage claims that have two basic steps:

Determining whether a patient is likely a poor metabolizer of the drug iloperidone based upon DNA analysis (i.e., determine if the patient has has the CYP2D6 genotype)

Administering iloperidone at a lower dose to predicted poor metabolizers in order to reduce the risk of “QTc prolongation” for poor metabolizers.

In the case, iloperidone was already known as a drug treatment and it was also known that some folks were poor metabolizers in a way that created the particular health risk and that a lower dosage is still effective for poor metabolizers (since the drug stays in the body longer).  A remaining problem solved by the inventors was how to predict who should get the low dosage.  The core discovery here is that a genetic difference substantially explains the risk.  The inventors made that important discovery and then implemented it with straightforward administration steps.  The question then is whether this approach is patent eligible.

Hikma Case Set for Supreme Court Consideration published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

Hikma Case Set for Supreme Court Consideration

by Dennis Crouch

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Supreme Court 2019)

Briefing is now complete in this important eligibility case pending before the Supreme Court. Hikma’s petition presents the following question:

Whether patents that claim a method of medically treating a patient automatically satisfy Section 101 of the Patent Act, even if they apply a natural law using only routine and conventional steps

Hickma’s question clearly mischaracterizes the Federal Circuit opinion – a common approach these days.  In its opposition brief, the patentee Vanda calls-out the intentional error:

Hikma’s Petition wrongly asserts that the Federal Circuit declared all method-of-treatment claims to be “automatically” patent-eligible under Section 101. . . [Hickma’s] Question is not presented by the decision below or any other decision.

Although Hickma does a good job of nit-picking, the underlying reality is important — the Federal Circuit’s decision in Vanda is not easily reconciled with its Ariosa decision or the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus.  And, the Federal Circuit and USPTO have effectively green-lighted patents on methods of treatment that would be ineligible if recharacterized as methods of diagnosis or creating a treatment plan.

Petition for a writ of certiorari

Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property and Innovation Professors, Engine Advocacy, et al.

Brief amici curiae of The Association for Accessible Medicines and Certain Individual Companies

Brief of respondent Vanda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in opposition

Reply to Brief in Opposition of Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc

The amicus briefs in this case all focus on the same issue — arguing that the Federal Circuit’s Vanda decision conflicts with Mayo and Flook. The Law Prof brief explains:  “The Federal Circuit’s decision effectively overturns this court’s precedents, thwarts the proper development of patent eligibility law, and will lead to countless improperly issued patents.”  The Law Professor Brief was filed by Stanford’s IP Clinic – although neither Mark Lemley nor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette signed-on.  Professors Josh Sarnoff (DePaul) and Katherine Strandburg (NYU) substantially drafted the brief.  Top pharma-patent litigator Douglass Hochstetler (KelleyDrye) filed the AAM brief.

= = =

In a previous post, I explained that Vanda’s drug dosage claims that have two basic steps:

Determining whether a patient is likely a poor metabolizer of the drug iloperidone based upon DNA analysis (i.e., determine if the patient has has the CYP2D6 genotype)

Administering iloperidone at a lower dose to predicted poor metabolizers in order to reduce the risk of “QTc prolongation” for poor metabolizers.

In the case, iloperidone was already known as a drug treatment and it was also known that some folks were poor metabolizers in a way that created the particular health risk and that a lower dosage is still effective for poor metabolizers (since the drug stays in the body longer).  A remaining problem solved by the inventors was how to predict who should get the low dosage.  The core discovery here is that a genetic difference substantially explains the risk.  The inventors made that important discovery and then implemented it with straightforward administration steps.  The question then is whether this approach is patent eligible.

Hikma Case Set for Supreme Court Consideration published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/