Biotechnology Law Report最新文献_第8页

Is the Chemical Genus Claim Really “Dead” at the Federal Circuit?: Part I 化学属索赔在联邦巡回法院真的“死亡”了吗?:第一部分

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2022-01-31 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2022.29259.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

{"title":"Is the Chemical Genus Claim Really “Dead” at the Federal Circuit?: Part I","authors":"Christopher M. Holman","doi":"10.1089/blr.2022.29259.cmh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2022.29259.cmh","url":null,"abstract":"A 2020 law review article entitled The Death of the Genus Claim (“Death”) purports to document a dramatic shift in the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)’s enablement and written description requirements, particularly as applied to chemical genus claims. According to the authors of Death, it has become nearly impossible to obtain a chemical genus claim that will be upheld as valid in the face of a challenge for overbreadth under Section 112(a). Death was cited extensively in Amgens’s successful petition for certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi, a case asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s decision finding Amgen’s claims reciting genuses of monoclonal antibodies to be invalid for lack of enablement. Death raise important issues for pharmaceutical innovation, a number of which I address in this first installment (“Part I”) of a two-part article. I begin by providing some excerpts from Judge Lourie’s concurrence in the Federal Circuit’s denial of en banc rehearing of Amgen v. Sanofi, in which he refutes the key arguments raised in Death and by Amgen. I then take a deep dive, exploring what in particular we mean when we refer to a patent claim as a “chemical genus claim,” an important term that is subject to different interpretations. Those who use the term, including the authors of Death, often do so without explicitly defining it, which can result in some lack of clarity. In the remainder of this Part I, I reanalyze the judicial decisions upon which Death bases its claim, and explain why, in my view, the article does not actually substantiate its claim of a marked shift in the Federal Circuit’s interpretation and application of 112(a). ∗ Christopher M. Holman, Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law; Senior Fellow, Center for Intellectual Property x Innovation Policy (CIP-2), George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School; and Executive Editor, Biotechnology Law Report.","PeriodicalId":55354,"journal":{"name":"Biotechnology Law Report","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60865370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

ModernaTx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp. ModernaTx公司诉Arbutus生物制药公司案

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2022-01-24 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2022.29260.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 0

In Juno v. Kite the Federal Circuit Strikes Down Patent Directed Towards Pioneering Innovation in CAR T-Cell Therapy 在朱诺诉凯特案中，联邦巡回法院驳回了针对CAR - t细胞疗法开创性创新的专利

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-12-02 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29252.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 3

Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. Juno Therapeutics公司诉Kite Pharma公司案

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-12-02 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29253.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 0

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry 生物技术法和生物技术产业的若干发展

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29255.sjz

Steven J. Zweig

引用次数: 0

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 葛兰素史克有限责任公司诉梯瓦制药美国公司案

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29256.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 0

14-Day Limit of Human Embryo Research: Moral Issues in the Patent Law in China 人类胚胎研究的14天期限：中国专利法中的道德问题

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29254.jl

Li Jiang

引用次数: 1

An Innovation Principle in Gene Technology Law? 基因技术法的创新原则?

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-11-09 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29251.tms

T. Spranger

引用次数: 0

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. Minerva Surgical公司诉Hologic公司案

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29247.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 0

Selected Developments in Biotechnology Law and the Biotechnology Industry 生物技术法和生物技术产业的若干发展

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29250.sjz

Steven J. Zweig

引用次数: 0