Section Newsletters

Articles From Michael J. Weil

Nike and Puma Battle in a ‘Footware’ Fight By Michael J. Weil Intellectual Property, September 2020 The Internet of Things has expanded from household appliances to wearables such as smart watches. Nike has a smart sneaker. Will its ‘footware’ trademark be seen as distinctive or as just a misspelled, descriptive ‘footwear,’ as opposer Puma asserts?
USPTO gives patent examiners new subject matter eligibility guidelines following Vanda By Michael J. Weil Intellectual Property, November 2018 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidelines to patent examiners in June 2018 following the ruling in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals.
Hold the Mayo: Vanda ruling reviews patent subject matter eligibility By Michael J. Weil Intellectual Property, June 2018 The recent Vanda v. West-Ward decision cut a distinct path through the controversial Mayo and Alice rules for evaluating subject matter eligibility of patents.  
Stop the music? Spotify sued for $1.6 billion By Michael J. Weil Intellectual Property, March 2018 Wixen Music sued music streamer Spotify for not obtaining required composition and mechanical licenses, and not publishing the required Notices of Intent. The Congressionally pending Music Modernization Acts, H.R. 4706, S. 2334, may reduce such suits, eliminating some legal remedies for music publishing copyright infringement suits, while creating a blanket license and new database, and changing current royalty rate setting practices.
Helsinn v. Teva: The America Invents Act on “sale” By Michael J. Weil & Andrew C. Warnecke Intellectual Property, November 2017 In 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) rendered an impactful decision regarding what constitutes the sale of an invention under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). The decision, Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is already shaping subsequent patent law decisions in the district courts and altering the U.S. Patent Office’s (“PTO”) evaluation of AIA patents.
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.

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