Blog

A few weeks ago, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Biosig v. Nautilus, (Fed. Cir. 2015) on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, Nautilus v. Biosig, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) which instructed the Federal Ciruit to reconsider whether the claims of the patent in suit were sufficiently clear to meet the requirements of 35 USC 112. The Federal Circuit had already reviewed those claims and found them to valid under that court’s prevailing formulation for clarity: the claims in question were neither “insolubly ambiguous” nor “not amenable to construction.” Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 715 F. 3d 891 (Fed. Cir. 2013), but was required to review the claims once again under the new “reasonable certainty” standard.

As of June 2014, the American brewing industry hit a big milestone with more than 3,000 operating US breweries. This recent expansion not only signifies an increase in locally brewed delicacies, but it also means that brewers will find it increasingly difficult to differentiate their brew from that of their fellow brewmasters. In order to stand out in this sea of bottles, brewers often use clever names for their brews. However, be it a “hopcentric” pun or a “barley-legal” nickname, it is increasingly difficult to find a clever name for a new brew while avoiding a legal trademark battle.

Hartford’s own City Steam Brewery recently settled a trademark battle over the branding on its bottled beer. Anchor Brewing Co., based in California, filed suit against City Steam, in a case that ultimately led to a seemingly minute settlement agreement. City Steam will now market its beer under the one-word “CitySteam” name instead of the original “City Steam.” Another local, New England Brewing Company recently received a petition from an attorney in India over their highly popular brew, “Gandhi Bot”, claiming that this vegetarian, aromatic India Pale Ale, is “nothing but an insult to the Indian constitution!”

Dilworth IP will be hosting an afternoon seminar on Wednesday, April 29th at 1:30pm at the Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC), 5th Floor 1 Broadway, Cambridge, MA. Dr. Anthony Sabatelli and Dr. Cambria Alpha-Cobb will address many common questions about the patent process. The talk will be geared toward inventors and entrepreneurs alike.

Patent Basics for Entrepreneurs: Ever wondered which of your ideas were patentable? What is the first step towards applying for a patent? Why do patents even exist? During this seminar we discuss the flow between inventions and patents, how a patent works, the time line to getting a patent, in addition to highlighting some examples and recent trends from the US patent and trademark office. Following will be a question and answer session to address further questions on basic patent law! Light snacks to ward off the post-lunch slump.

Cambria Alpha-Cobb, Ph.D., Technology Specialist at Dilworth IP is moderating a panel on April 22nd entitled Non-traditional Careers in Bio presented by Women in Bio of Greater Boston. The event description from the website reads:

Women In Bio is an organization of professionals committed to promoting careers, leadership, and entrepreneurship for women in the life sciences. This event will feature a panel discussion for those interested in learning about opportunities available in the scientific community beyond the traditional academic and industrial roles. The panel will include several speakers who have taken either a non-traditional path to a career in science, or used their background in the life sciences to pursue a career of the non-academic or industry nature. These speakers will represent a variety of fields including but not limited to patent law, consulting, and practicing medicine!

This is the first article in a series reviewing 2014 patents focused on Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The initial article relates to the technology area of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR), which concerns the use of microbes to extract oil from oil-containing formations.

Although only five MEOR-related patents issued in 2014, patent activity generally in the EOR area was robust, with 50+ patents having issued. In the upcoming articles, these remaining patents will be similarly reviewed according to their particular subject matter. While this article covers patents in MEOR, which is a biological method of oil recovery, other recovery methods such as chemicals: polymer flooding, chemical flooding, liquid carbon dioxide flooding, and hydrocarbon displacement; physical methods: thermal recovery, steam flooding, gas drive oil; and technical methods: hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic jet drilling, etc. will be covered in upcoming articles to the extent patents in these areas have issued.

As you may have heard, the United States Patent and Trademark Office just issued U.S. 9,000,000, assigned to WiperFill Holdings, for a “windshield washer conditioner” that collects and conditions rainwater or dew from a windshield for use as washer fluid. What you may not realize is that the Patent Office hand-selects certain patents to be recognized as a “milestone millionth.” In 2011, Second Sight Medical Products received U.S. 8,000,000 for a visual prosthesis that enhances visual perception for people who have gone blind due to outer retinal degeneration. And in 2006, U.S. 7,000,000 was awarded to a DuPont inventor for biodegradable polysaccharide fibers useful for textiles.

Frederick Spaeth, Partner at Dilworth IP, will be presenting at the Joint Patent Practice Seminar at the Marriott Marquis in NYC on May 12th. Fred will be speaking briefly as part of a panel which will discuss the impact on patent law of recent and various Supreme Court decisions. His talk is entitled The Nautilus Decision Defines the Test for Indefiniteness: Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments.

The FDA just approved the first biosimilar drug, breaking the way for a new industry of drugs that could change the forecast of drug spending in the USA. In the simplest definitions, a biosimilar is comparable to the generic form or a copy of a biological drug. They differ from the reference drug in that they could contain differences in materials or methods of manufacture. They are meant to replicate or copy the reference biologic but because they tend to be much larger and highly complicated, than common small molecule drugs, these differences only make them highly similar, not identical, hence “bio-similar”.

In September 2014, the US FDA published its first edition of the so-called ‘Purple Book,’ with the rather lengthy title – ‘Lists of Licensed Biological Products with Reference Product Exclusivity and Biosimilarity or Interchangeability Evaluations.’ This new publication, like its well-established ‘Orange Book’ counterpart, will list approved biologic drug products and also their biosimilar and interchangeable generic equivalents. However, the Purple Book is still in its infancy. As of this writing, the published information is far from complete. Furthermore, the FDA has been slow in publishing the necessary guidance documents. Will the new Purple Book rise to the challenge of providing the necessary bridge between the patent and regulatory systems governing biologics? Will the requirements for demonstrating biosimilarity and interchangeability for biosimilar drug products turn out to be too onerous? This commentary explores the regulatory challenges for the role of the Purple Book as the first biosimilars begin receiving FDA approval this year.

My mother stood 4’ 10” tall, tipped the scales at 98 pounds, and was a stickler for correct grammar. She bristled when anyone uttered “I ain’t going,” “He’s taller than me,” or “Are youse goin’ down the shore this year?” And she would have agreed with Judge Newman (and me) that the majority erred in its March 16, 2015 ruling in Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp.