Blog

Frederick A. Spaeth, Partner at Dilworth IP, will be presenting a talk on how to protect intellectual property assets in an ever-evolving world of cloud-based technology. His talk will be part of a business law seminar hosted by the Greater Bridgeport Bar Association, and entitled “Intellectual Property Due Diligence for Start-Up Entities.” The event will take place on Thursday, April 14th at 1057 Broad Street in Bridgeport, CT.

With an 87-0 vote, the Senate approved the Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA, S. 1890) on Monday. The bill, which was backed by the White House, amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) to provide recourse for companies that experience trade secret theft.

Currently, the EEA criminalizes trade secret theft, but, according to Senate Finance Committee chair and bill co-sponsor Orrin Hatch (R-UT), relies on an overburdened Department of Justice for enforcement. Moreover, companies seeking redress must contend with a patchwork of variable state laws.

Dr. Anthony Sabatelli of Dilworth IP will join Dr. Susan Froshauer CEO of CURE (Connecticut United for Research Experience) for the 2016 BIO Legislative Day Fly-In on April 12th and 13th in Washington D.C. This annual event gives biotechnology executives from across the country the opportunity to discuss the most important legislative issues currently facing their industry with Members of Congress. All who attend the Fly-in will be provided with an intense legislative briefing before visiting Capitol Hill for their scheduled congressional meetings. The agenda for this year’s event will include topics involving National Institutes of Health research funding, the U.S. patent system, and Medicare reimbursement. Dr. Sabatelli, who has been attending this annual event for the past several years, said “the Fly-In is a unique opportunity for those of us advocating for the Biotech Industry to educate our legislators about issues vital to the continued health of this very important industry.”

In the last article, “Nanomedicine: A Vast Horizon from a Molecular Landscape-Part I, Introduction,” I briefly introduced the new and exciting field of “Nanomedicine” and reviewed the current funding support and areas of research and development. In this installment, I will first focus on representative companies and organizations and their researchers, and then close with a review of key interesting patents in this field.

Nanomedicine Companies

The state of Connecticut has committed significant resources in support of new innovation in bioscience and nanomedicine. Through Connecticut Innovations (“CI”), the state’s quasi-government investment fund, the state has two focused support programs: the Connecticut Bioscience Innovation Fund (“CBIF”) and the Regenerative Medicine Research Fund (“RMRF”), to facilitate the transition of bench-top innovation towards commercialization. Through CBIF, for example, the state is committed to investing $200 million over 10 years to support the research and development of local research institutes and entrepreneurs in bioscience. . These state initiatives continue to encourage the growth of nanomedicine companies.

Dilworth IP is proud to have sponsored the 2016 Yale Business Biotechnology Series which took place from March 28th to the 31st at Yale’s Anlyan Center in New Haven, CT. This program was established to help educate students and non-business professionals with a background in life sciences about the technology-finance ecosystem of the Biotech industry. Every night the seminar started with a one-hour course by Constance McKee of Manzanita Pharmaceuticals, and was followed by case studies presented by invited speakers. Dilworth IP’s Dr. Jing Zhou attended all four sessions of the course, and said “I think it was a wonderful event. It has speakers from different healthcare industries to show examples of various career paths, and provides a platform for students, postdocs and local professionals to network and share experiences.”

I fondly recall the day we splurged to upgrade our “starter” shredder to a Fellowes P560C-2 cross-cut model. While Starter jammed with more than a page or two and gagged on a single staple, the P560C-2 gulps pages at a time and devours staples without indigestion. And although it will overheat during an end-of-year purge, the Fellowes shredder has served me well. That explains my disappointment in seeing the Federal Circuit quash a Board finding of non-obviousness in ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc. (decided February 22, 2016).

The story continues to unfold regarding the patent eligibility of diagnostics, a story that first made headlines in the fall of 2013. Back then, the District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order holding that medical diagnostic method claims are not eligible for patent protection (“The Sequenom Decision”).1 The decision was noteworthy, because it had been made upon remand and direction from the Federal Circuit to examine the patent eligibility of diagnostics in light of the Supreme Court’s now infamous Myriad and Mayo decisions.

In a case addressing specific personal jurisdiction arising from two Delaware court cases, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, holding that the minimum–contacts requirement for specific personal jurisdiction was satisfied based on ANDA filings and a generic drug company’s plans to market its proposed drugs in a particular state. The clear implication of the decision is that specific personal jurisdiction can be found in any state where a drug will be marketed. Looking forward, any appeal to the Supreme Court will be of great interest to pharmaceutical patent litigants, as it comes following the Supreme Court’s holding in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), where general personal jurisdiction required that the corporation’s contacts with a state be such that it is essentially “at home” in the state.

The decision involved two separate cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, both involving Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2015-1456 (Fed. Cir. March 18, 2016); and Astrazeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2015-1460 (Fed. Cir. March 18, 2016).

This is the second article in a review of patents issued in 2015 in the area of Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC). The previous article covered FCC additives, and can be found HERE. The summary below covers seven patents relating to FCC catalysts and zeolites. Four of the seven, U.S. Patent No.’s 8,940,652, 8,951,498, 9,126,183, and 9,192,925, relate primarily to the preparation of the zeolite. Two others, U.S. Patent No.’s 8,993,469 and 9,056,308, relate to the overall catalyst. A seventh patent, U.S. Patent 9,175,230, relates to a catalyst having a particular combination of alumina’s. Three of the patents, U.S. Patent No.’s 8,940,652, 9,056,308, and 9,175,230 also recite limitations related to phosphorous. Finally, two of the patents, U.S. Patent No.’s 8,951,498 and 9,126,183, also relate to mesoporosity. Review of the collection of patents demonstrates that a substantial amount of research activity continues to be conducted in the area of catalysts and zeolites; in particular work focused on zeolite preparation for improving stability and mesoporosity.

Dr. Jonathan Schuchardt, partner at Dilworth IP, will be hosting a FREE webinar on Wednesday April 20th at 1:00 PM (EDT). This session, entitled Unexpected Results under Section 103 and the Federal Circuit will explore recent Federal Circuit cases focused on the quantity and quality of unexpected results that a patentee needs to prevail over in a patentability challenge. The webinar will also touch upon other secondary considerations of non-obviousness and consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex, particularly in the electromechanical arts.