Our monthly newsletter reports on the patent law developments in biotech, biologics and pharmaceutical cases, legislation and federal agency actions. This month’s issue covers relevant news from April 2020, including:
- The Federal Circuit potentially extends the potential reach chemical compound structural similarity obviousness law
- The Federal Circuit holds that a section 156 patent term extension based on FDA approval of an active ingredient “does not encompass a metabolite of the active ingredient”
- The Federal Circuit issues two decisions on Article III standing in appeals from the PTAB Hoping that you and your loved ones are safe and healthy.
Almost sixty years after the Everly Brothers recorded Cathy’s Clown, the authorship of the song is being disputed by Brother Don and the heirs of the late Brother Phil. In a recent decision, the Sixth Circuit revived the case. It found that Don’s 2011 copyright termination notice, in which he claimed to be the sole author, did not constitute a “plain and express repudiation” of authorship, and hence did not clearly trigger the statute of limitations barring his suit. A jury will therefore have to “sort it all out.” Please see Corey McGehee’s 
As most attorneys know, effective communication is essential in protecting and advocating for clients, but gaining oral advocacy experience sometimes takes years. For patent attorney and agents, this experience can come before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In an effort to encourage less senior patent attorneys and agents to gain this valuable experience, the USPTO has begun the Legal Experience and Advancement Program, or “LEAP.” With this program, the USPTO seeks to provide oral advocacy opportunities to junior attorneys and agents who might not otherwise gain such experience, and thereby ensure that all attorneys and agents who practice before the PTAB have the skills necessary to effectively and competently represent their clients. 
The last several months have presented new and formidable challenges for virtually every industry in light of COVID-19. Among these challenges are what to do about the various industry meetings and conferences that are used for networking, introducing new ideas, securing supply/distribution contracts, and developing technology standards. These types of events have historically been held in-person, recognizing that there is value to being able to shake a colleague’s hand or to gather with a community of peers. As social distancing and stay-at-home orders have caused us to adjust the way we go about our daily lives, so too have industries had to adjust their vital, in-person, meetings. This blog post will review COVID-19’s impact on various industry meetings and the ways in which industries have committed to continuing to press innovation forward. In addition, we review important considerations in light of disruptions to these industry meetings and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act with respect to patent filing strategies. 
Today’s litigators are advocates and strategists, excelling in the application of rules, the art of negotiation, and the power of oral argument, and they use these tools to achieve the best possible outcomes for their clients. In the age of COVID-19, with stay-at-home orders in effect across much of the nation, litigators may have lost one of their most important tools: the in-person deposition. Anticipating that in-person depositions will return in the near future, some litigators have filed stipulated motions to extend schedules and deadlines, to provide time to permit the return. Such efforts have been rebuffed by several courts, which have entered orders requiring that depositions be taken by remote means and according to schedule to keep cases moving during this period of enormous uncertainty. If this trend continues, parties and their counsel should no longer expect to be able to conduct in-person depositions, and, instead get accustomed to taking depositions remotely. 
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) Opinion in Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof,
The advertising regulator in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has 
The Supreme Court arguments in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V.