Sandoz v. Amgen: The Supreme Court makes its first decision on biosimilars
By Michael J. Weil & Steven L. Baron
Intellectual Property,
September 2017
In its first major biosimilar case, Sandoz v. Amgen, the US Supreme Court held that under federal law the BPCIA's provision requiring applicant (Sandoz) to provide sponsor (Amgen) with its application and manufacturing information could not be enforced by injunction; that applicant’s failure to provide the information was a question of state law; and that an applicant (Sandoz) is not required to wait until the FDA licenses its biosimilar to provide notice of commercial marketing to the sponsor (Amgen). The decision eliminates at least 180 days of exclusivity from brand name biologics.
Sandoz v. Amgen: Biosimilars arrive at the Supreme Court
By Steven L. Baron & Michael J. Weil
Intellectual Property,
June 2017
“Biologics” are made from living cells, typically engineered bacterium or yeast. Unlike small-molecule drugs, like Ibuprofen, which are made from chemicals in a duplicate process, biologics, made from living material, are dynamic, and extremely effective treting many diseases. The 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) permits drug manufacturers to product biosimilars that are “highly similar” to a reference product. In Sandoz v. Amgen the US Supreme Court will deal with the mandated 180 day waiting period and patent infringement allegation.
Me and my Shadow—World-famous magician, Teller, wins summary judgment against copycat magician
By Steven L. Baron & John D. Fitzpatrick
Intellectual Property,
June 2014
Magician Teller prevailed on a summary judgment motion for copyright infringement against Dogge, a Dutch performer who re-enacted Teller’s famous “Shadows” illusion. Although the technique of a magic trick is often unprotectable by copyright, Teller registered his act as a “dramatic pantomime,” protecting his exclusive right to perform the illusion. Defendant’s pro se defenses were unpersuasive.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board not flip about the bird
By Steven L. Baron & Natalie A. Harris
Intellectual Property,
October 2013
The Lanham Act forbids registration of "immoral" and "scandalous" trademarks. Some decisions appear arbitrary. Luxuria's beverage bottle with raised middle finger was refused registration.
Seventh Circuit addresses trademark confusion in movie title
By Steve Mandell, Steven L. Baron, & Elizabeth Morris
Intellectual Property,
June 2013
The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a Northern District of Illinois court’s dismissal of a trademark case where a movie title allegedly infringed upon the name of a musical group.
“Obama Pajamas” trademarks laid to rest
By Steven L. Baron & Rebecca A. Edwards
Intellectual Property,
April 2011
Time will tell if other applicants attempt to register trademarks such as “Clinton’s Mittens” “Sotomayer’s Attire” or “Emanuel Flannels” without permission. But for now, this USPTO decision seems to have put this issue to bed.
No just desserts for jus tertii defense in Illinois
By Steven L. Baron & Rebecca A. Edwards
Intellectual Property,
March 2010
A review of the landmark case of The Jim Mullen Charitable Foundation v. World Ability Federation, in which a jus tertii defense used in a trademark infringement case is rejected for the first time in Illinois.
Obamas for sale: How much is too much?
By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVine
Intellectual Property,
March 2009
Does the Obama family have legal recourse for the use of Malia and Sasha’s identities? The answer is most likely, yes. Most states, including Illinois, protect against the unauthorized use of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes. The so-called right of publicity extends to all people, regardless of whether they are public figures or private citizens.
“Pull My Finger Fred” gets his day in court
By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVine
Intellectual Property,
September 2007
For years to come, Illinois courts will cite the JCW Investments case (or the “farting doll” case, as it is affectionately known) for the proposition that federal law does not preempt state law in the realm of punitive damages. Who would have thought that Pull My Finger Fred would be such a pioneer?
Legal wrinkles in sponsored links
By Steven L. Baron & William Beattie
Intellectual Property,
March 2006
Like everyone else schooled in a brick-and-mortar world, trademark attorneys and the courts are struggling to apply decades-old trademark law principles to the universe of the World Wide Web.
Illinois appellate court embraces “inevitable disclosure” doctrine in trade secrets case
By Steven L. Baron
Intellectual Property,
February 2001
On December 6, 2000, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, issued an opinion in the case of Strata Marketing, Inc. v. Murphy, No. 1-99-2749, ___ Ill.App.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1st Dist. 2000), in which the court embraced the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
Select a Different Author