Biotechnology Law Report最新文献_第9页

Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe: Clarity at Last? 欧洲补充保护证书:最终明朗化?

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29249.st

J. Fabre, Sarah Taylor

引用次数: 0

In Minerva v. Hologic, the U.S. Supreme Court Reins in the Equitable Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel 在Minerva诉Hologic一案中，美国最高法院重新确立了转让人反言的公平原则

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29246.cmh

Christopher M. Holman

引用次数: 0

Observation on the Admission Situation of the Anti-Coronavirus Drug “Remdesivir” in China 抗冠状病毒药物“瑞德西韦”在中国的入院情况观察

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29248.nl

Na Li, Xiang Yu

引用次数: 1

Legal and Ethical Challenges in the Construction of China's Biobanks 中国生物库建设中的法律与伦理挑战

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-08-26 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29245.jc

Jiajv Chen, Jiayu Huang, Xuekai Xie

引用次数: 2

In re Huping Hu: Quantum Entanglement, Medical Innovation, and Patentability on the Scientific “Fringe” 胡虎平:量子纠缠、医学创新与科学“边缘”的可专利性

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-08-02 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29241.cmh

Christopher M. Holman By

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 : 2021-08-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29243.sjz

Steven J. Zweig

引用次数: 0

Pac. Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc. United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2021 996 F.3d 134 太平洋。加利福尼亚州生物科学股份有限公司诉牛津纳米孔技术公司。，股份有限公司美国联邦巡回上诉法院，2021年《联邦公报》第3版第996页第134页

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29240.cmh

D. Missing

{"title":"Pac. Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc. United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2021 996 F.3d 134","authors":"D. Missing","doi":"10.1089/blr.2021.29240.cmh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2021.29240.cmh","url":null,"abstract":"Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PacBio) sued Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. and Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Ltd. (collectively, Oxford), accusing Oxford of infringing several of its patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,546,400 and 9,772,323. The patents describe and claim methods for using nanopore technology to sequence DNA and other nucleic acids. A jury found all asserted claims infringed but also determined that they are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 for lack of enablement. The district court denied PacBio's motion for judgment as a matter of law (and for a new trial) on enablement. The district court also denied PacBio's request that the court grant a new trial because of Oxford's improper remarks during opening, remarks that included references to the potential applications of its accused products to the then-emerging global COVID-19 crisis. PacBio argued that the remarks caused prejudice that could not be remedied by the curative instruction the district court gave at PacBio's request. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Regarding enablement, the court noted that it is not enough that relevant artisans knew how to perform some \"nanopore sequencing'' before the priority date of the patents, and that the jury had substantial evidence of non-enablement of the full claim scope. Notably, PacBio had no evidence of actual reduction to practice of its own that would undermine Oxford's evidence of non-enablement. As PacBio acknowledged, its reduction to practice was constructive only, i.e., took the form of its description in patent applications, without any accompanying real-world reduction to practice. The Federal Circuit did not see a basis for disturbing the district court's assessment that there was an insufficient likelihood that the improper opening remarks had an adverse impact on the ultimate verdict to justify a new trial in this case.","PeriodicalId":55354,"journal":{"name":"Biotechnology Law Report","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44266026","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: 0

In re Huping Hu United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2021 No. 2019-2104, 2021 WL 1016437 (non-precedential) In re Huping Hu联邦巡回上诉法院，2021年第2019-2104号，2021年WL 1016437(非先例)

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29238.cmh

引用次数: 0

Review of the UK's R&D Tax Reliefs—A Good News Story for the UK's Life Sciences Sector? 回顾英国研发税收减免——英国生命科学行业的一个好消息?

IF 0.2 4区生物学

Biotechnology Law Report Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI: 10.1089/blr.2021.29242.ps

Penny Simmons

引用次数: 0

Bio-Rad Lab'ys, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, 2021996 F.3d 1302 Bio-Rad Lab'ys，股份有限公司诉美国联邦巡回上诉法院国际贸易委员会，2021996 F.3d 1302

IF 0.2 4区生物学