Search for: "ABBVIE BIOTECHNOLOGY, LTD. v. US "
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2017, 8:49 pm
By Adrian M Trioli* & Noelene Treloar** -- The Australian Full Federal Court's recent decision in Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129 confirms that an extension of patent term for pharmaceutical substances does not extend to Swiss type claims. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 4:11 am
While many of us were recovering from excessive helpings of turkey and Christmas pudding, a fascinating interim decision was handed down by Mr Justice Carr on 29 December in the biosimilars battle of Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., Ltd and Others v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited [2016] EWHC 3383 (Ch). [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 4:54 pm
A Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that patents containing “Swiss-style” claims are outside the scope of the Australian patent term extension regime in its recent judgment of Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 4:54 pm
A Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that patents containing “Swiss-style” claims are outside the scope of the Australian patent term extension regime in its recent judgment of Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 4:54 pm
A Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that patents containing “Swiss-style” claims are outside the scope of the Australian patent term extension regime in its recent judgment of Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 4:54 pm
A Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that patents containing “Swiss-style” claims are outside the scope of the Australian patent term extension regime in its recent judgment of Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 9:24 am
., Ltd v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 6:50 am
FKB and S/B alleged that Abbott Laboratories (Bermuda) Ltd (“Abbott Bermuda”), the applicant for the PCT application which resulted in the European patent, was not entitled to claim priority from a US application, because it was not the successor in title to the applicants for the US application who were, as US law required at the time, the inventors. [read post]
18 Aug 2017, 2:04 am
A Full Bench of three judges of the Federal Court of Australia has overturned an earlier decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and has ruled that extensions of patent term are not available for second and subsequent medical uses of pharmaceutical substances that are produced by recombinant DNA technology: Commissioner of Patents v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] FCAFC 129 (AbbVie). [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 1:02 pm
., Ltd and Others v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited ("FKB 1") is being handed down at 10:30AM London time.As soon as we digest the decision, GuestKat Eihblin Vardy, will be back to let readers know whether, despite having survived various interim attempts by AbbVie to kill it, the Arrow declaration has finally hit the target for Fujifilm ("FKB") and Samsung Bioepis/Biogen who want to market their adalimumab biosimilar. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
Finally, in the peace of a Friday off from work, she has been able to fully digest the decision of Mr Justice Carr in Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology [2016] EWHC 374.What is this case about? [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 8:38 pm
AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. [read post]
22 Jan 2017, 11:49 am
Seeking an ArrowArrow declarations can be granted: Fujifilm v AbbVieGuestKat Eibhlin Vardy discusses Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., Ltd v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1, which involves two appeals, both raising the question of whether a Court can grant a so called ‘Arrow declaration’, i.e. a declaration that “a product was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date”.Guest Post -… [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 2:38 am
| Actavis v Lilly | EU public consultation on neighbouring rights | Life as an IP Lawyer in San Francisco | Copyright in chess games | Trade surplus and IP | Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 3:34 am
Qiao Yongzhong's book “Maintenance time and the industry development of patents -- empirical research with evidence from China”Biosimilars battle in clearing the way - Fujifilm v AbbVie continuesFull low down on the interim decision handed down by Mr Justice Carr on 29 December in the biosimilars battle of Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., Ltd and Others v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited [2016] EWHC 3383 (Ch).15 fully-funded IP… [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 3:48 am
AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., Opposition No. 91238564 (January 24, 2019) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lorelei Ritchie).Strength of Opposer's Mark: Applicant AbbVie contended that the letter sequence "RIZ" is entitled to a narrow scope of protection because the term is in common use in the pharmaceutical industry. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 2:59 am
* Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics can use declaratory relief to clear the way for its Humira biosimilar in the UK, rules Mr Justice Carr Annsley pens of Mr Justice Carr’s decision in Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology [2016] EWHC 374. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 11:21 am
| Actavis v Lilly | EU public consultation on neighbouring rights | Life as an IP Lawyer in San Francisco | Copyright in chess games | Trade surplus and IP | Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics v AbbVie Biotechnology. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 4:30 am
Fujifilm v AbbVie: practice, procedure and policy analysisGuest Kat Eibhlin Vardy summarizes the Rapid Response event organized by AIPPI on the case Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Company Limited v AbbVie Biotechnology Limited, [2017] EWHC 395 (Pat), from the perspective of patent and competition law.Overturning a trade mark opposition decision - Part 2 - SOULUXE - likelihood of confusionGuest Kat Rosie Burbidge recaps the case SoulCycle Inc… [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm
AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) (informative as to section III.C.1) (here) This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a drug package insert was publicly available, where the record included a screenshot of an archived FDA webpage from the Internet Archive and testimony from a medical doctor describing the use and accessibility of information on the FDA’s webpage. [read post]
