Zoe Bollinger > News
Liberty Enlightening the World. That’s the title of patent #USD11023 granted to one Auguste Bartholdi on February 18, 1879. You might know it better as the... Read More »
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said that on Friday it will launch a trial run of a program intended to expedite the appeals process from the current... Read More »
If one expert is good at creating innovative solutions, why not tap into the power of hundreds or thousands to discover the next big thing? Crowdsourcing idea... Read More »
On June 2nd WiLAN purchased the Qimonda patent portfolio from Infineon, which they followed immediately with an announcement that they had already signed a licensing... Read More »
Apple this week was awarded a design patent for the cylindrical entrance to its iconic Shanghai retail store — a concept credited in part to late company... Read More »
The Open Register of Patent Ownership, or ORoPO, opens its doors and becomes the world’s first global register of patent ownership information. The goal of this... Read More »
Comments
Ananthi Open Register of Patent Ownership is useful for patent inventors
Jun 16, 2015
Patent 9,051,043, issued June 9, covers the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to provide emergency medical support. Google said the vehicles would be configured to... Read More »
The patent is for a depth scanning camera and technology that will allow you to take any everyday object–say, just something cute sitting on your desk or shelf... Read More »
NASA is turning to the public and crowdsourcing for outside-the-box thinking about human space exploration challenges with a series of new NASA Open... Read More »
Comments
Dennis MalaveThis is awesome, i can not wait to hear from them. It will bring great debates.
Jun 27, 2015
Zoe BollingerThanks Dennis! We are very excited to be working on contests for NASA. We'll announce when the first one goes up and are really looking forward to some great submissions
Jun 29, 2015
The aeroplane enthusiasts at Boeing appear to be thinking about making a move on drone territory, with its developers patenting a system that allows for the automated... Read More »
InterDigital Communications Inc. wants a Delaware federal judge to declare that devices manufactured by Microsoft Corp. unit Nokia match the claims of its wireless... Read More »
IP Bridge – Japan’s first state-funded patent aggregator, or sovereign patent fund (SPF) – announced two significant deals on Friday. As a result it ... Read More »
To listen to the critics, one would believe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement marks the end of the world for global health, especially for the... Read More »
Scott Sandell, managing general partner of the venture-capital firm NEA discusses his revised thoughts on patent reform and the crackdown on “patent... Read More »
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on May 28 that it has reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva, the largest ever settlement with the FTC. The agency... Read More »
Comments
Ananthi The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement resolving the Commission’s antitrust suit charging Cephalon, Inc. with illegally blocking generic competition to its blockbuster sleep-disorder drug Provigil. The settlement ensures that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., which acquired Cephalon in 2012, will make a total of $1.2 billion available to compensate purchasers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies, and insurers, who overpaid because of Cephalon’s illegal conduct.
Some of these purchasers have settled related litigation and payments made by Teva in those or other actions can be credited against the FTC fund according to the terms of the stipulated order for equitable monetary relief. Any remaining funds will be paid to the U.S. Treasury.
As part of the settlement, Teva also has agreed to a prohibition on the type of anticompetitive patent settlements that Cephalon used to artificially inflate the price of Provigil. Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world, and this prohibition applies to all of its U.S. operations.
“Today’s landmark settlement is an important step in the FTC’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay for delay settlements, which burden patients, American businesses, and taxpayers with billions of dollars in higher prescription drug costs,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Requiring wrongdoers to give up their ill-gotten gains is an important deterrent.”
Provigil is a prescription drug approved to treat excessive sleepiness in patients with sleep apnea, narcolepsy, and shift-work sleep disorder. In the year before generic entry, Provigil sales in the United States exceeded $1 billion.
The settlement stems from a 2008 FTC lawsuit, which charged that Cephalon unlawfully protected its Provigil monopoly through a series of agreements with four generic drug manufacturers in late 2005 and early 2006. The FTC alleged that Cephalon sued the generic drug makers for patent infringement and later paid them over $300 million in total to drop their patent challenges and forgo marketing their generic products for six years, until April 2012.
This type of settlement, in which the generic drug firm agrees not to market its product for a period of time and the brand name drug manufacturer pays the generic— whether in monetary or non-monetary form – is commonly referred to as a “reverse-payment” patent settlement. In 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court confirmed that reverse payments can violate the antitrust laws.
Trial in the case is scheduled to begin June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve the FTC’s charges.
Today’s settlement represents the first FTC case to be resolved since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in FTC v. Actavis made clear that reverse payment patent settlements are subject to the same antitrust rules that govern U.S. business conduct generally.
Under the stipulated order for permanent injunction, Teva is prohibited from engaging in certain types of reverse payment agreements. This provision is aimed primarily at the type of reverse payments that Cephalon used, that is, business transactions entered at the same time as the settlement that serve as a form of compensation. In this case, Cephalon agreed to pay the generics principally for active pharmaceutical ingredients and intellectual property, business deals the FTC was prepared to prove at trial made no economic sense for Cephalon except as payments not to compete.
The order bars Teva from entering into a business deal with a competitor within 30 days of, or expressly conditioned on, a patent litigation settlement that restricts that competitor’s generic entry. This provision will not prevent Teva from entering into truly independent business transactions, and it preserves Teva’s ability to enter other types of settlement agreements in which the value transferred is unlikely to present antitrust concerns, such as those providing payment for saved future litigation expenses (up to $7 million).
The prohibition also does not cover all possible forms of reverse payments that could raise antitrust concerns. For example, it does not cover a branded firm’s grant of an exclusive license to the generic, though some exclusive licenses in effect amount to an agreement by the branded drug firm not to market an “authorized generic.” While such a promise can function as an anticompetitive reverse payment, it was not at issue in this case.
The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order was 5-0. The Commission issued a statement, and Commissioners Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Joshua D. Wright issued a separate statement. The FTC filed the proposed consent decree in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
NOTE: Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed and entered by the District Court judge.
The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook (link is external), follow us on Twitter (link is external), and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Some of these purchasers have settled related litigation and payments made by Teva in those or other actions can be credited against the FTC fund according to the terms of the stipulated order for equitable monetary relief. Any remaining funds will be paid to the U.S. Treasury.
As part of the settlement, Teva also has agreed to a prohibition on the type of anticompetitive patent settlements that Cephalon used to artificially inflate the price of Provigil. Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world, and this prohibition applies to all of its U.S. operations.
“Today’s landmark settlement is an important step in the FTC’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from anticompetitive pay for delay settlements, which burden patients, American businesses, and taxpayers with billions of dollars in higher prescription drug costs,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “Requiring wrongdoers to give up their ill-gotten gains is an important deterrent.”
Provigil is a prescription drug approved to treat excessive sleepiness in patients with sleep apnea, narcolepsy, and shift-work sleep disorder. In the year before generic entry, Provigil sales in the United States exceeded $1 billion.
The settlement stems from a 2008 FTC lawsuit, which charged that Cephalon unlawfully protected its Provigil monopoly through a series of agreements with four generic drug manufacturers in late 2005 and early 2006. The FTC alleged that Cephalon sued the generic drug makers for patent infringement and later paid them over $300 million in total to drop their patent challenges and forgo marketing their generic products for six years, until April 2012.
This type of settlement, in which the generic drug firm agrees not to market its product for a period of time and the brand name drug manufacturer pays the generic— whether in monetary or non-monetary form – is commonly referred to as a “reverse-payment” patent settlement. In 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court confirmed that reverse payments can violate the antitrust laws.
Trial in the case is scheduled to begin June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve the FTC’s charges.
Today’s settlement represents the first FTC case to be resolved since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in FTC v. Actavis made clear that reverse payment patent settlements are subject to the same antitrust rules that govern U.S. business conduct generally.
Under the stipulated order for permanent injunction, Teva is prohibited from engaging in certain types of reverse payment agreements. This provision is aimed primarily at the type of reverse payments that Cephalon used, that is, business transactions entered at the same time as the settlement that serve as a form of compensation. In this case, Cephalon agreed to pay the generics principally for active pharmaceutical ingredients and intellectual property, business deals the FTC was prepared to prove at trial made no economic sense for Cephalon except as payments not to compete.
The order bars Teva from entering into a business deal with a competitor within 30 days of, or expressly conditioned on, a patent litigation settlement that restricts that competitor’s generic entry. This provision will not prevent Teva from entering into truly independent business transactions, and it preserves Teva’s ability to enter other types of settlement agreements in which the value transferred is unlikely to present antitrust concerns, such as those providing payment for saved future litigation expenses (up to $7 million).
The prohibition also does not cover all possible forms of reverse payments that could raise antitrust concerns. For example, it does not cover a branded firm’s grant of an exclusive license to the generic, though some exclusive licenses in effect amount to an agreement by the branded drug firm not to market an “authorized generic.” While such a promise can function as an anticompetitive reverse payment, it was not at issue in this case.
The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated order was 5-0. The Commission issued a statement, and Commissioners Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Joshua D. Wright issued a separate statement. The FTC filed the proposed consent decree in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
NOTE: Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed and entered by the District Court judge.
The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room CC-5422, Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook (link is external), follow us on Twitter (link is external), and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
May 31, 2015
The markup of one of the more aggressive pieces of patent reform legislation has been delayed. Last week, The Hill reported that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee... Read More »
Acorda Therapeutics Inc. pushed back Tuesday against a challenge to its multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra by an organization with close ties to a hedge fund manager... Read More »
Comments
Ananthi Acorda Therapeutics Inc. pushed back Tuesday against a challenge to its multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra by an organization with close ties to a hedge fund manager, telling the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patent for the medicine is valid.
Acorda argued that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs has not established a reasonable likelihood of success because its filing challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685 relies on material it has not established as statutory prior art, is based on art that is cumulative to what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already considered and includes legally improper obviousness analysis.
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs is a subsidiary of hedge fund manager Kyle Bass' Hayman Credes Master Fund LP, Acorda said, claiming that Bass is using provisions of the America Invents Act to manipulate markets.
“The board also should exercise its discretion to deny a petition such as this filed by a hedge fund using the inter partes review process itself as a tool for financial gain,” the company said.
Bass' group has filed several inter partes review petitions in recent months. He said in a speech in January that he planned to use the AIA proceedings to challenge drug patents, according to the Financial Times.
Bass said that invalidating the patents not only would lower the price of drugs by opening the door for generic-drug competitors but also was part of an investment strategy to grow his fund, which he said has taken a short position on the drugmakers' stock and stands to gain if the stock price drops.
Bass sent a letter to Congress in April outlining his strategy and lobbying against proposed legislation known as the Innovation Act that would change the claim construction standard for inter partes review to make it more difficult to invalidate patents.
He said that his challenges "fulfill and define the purpose" of the AIA proceedings and that he is targeting patents that "do not represent true innovation or invention."
Acorda argued that the challenge to Ampyra should be denied in part because the petition does not name all of the real parties-in-interest, namely the undisclosed investors that provided substantial funding to Bass for the petition as part of their participation in his hedge fund.
“Allowing hedge funds to use the IPR process to manipulate financial markets is inconsistent with congressional intent,” Acorda argued Tuesday. “Instituting inter partes review here will only encourage more such filings, which will burden additional patent owners their industries, and the office.”
Representatives for Bass and for Acorda could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
The patent-at-issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685.
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs is represented by Ki O, Sarah E. Spires, Parvathi Kota and Paul J. Skiermont of Skiermont Puckett LLP.
Acorda Therapeutics Inc. is represented by Gerald Flattmann and Naveen Modi of Paul Hastings LLP.
The case is Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. Acorda Therapeutics Inc., case number IPR2015-00720, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Acorda argued that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs has not established a reasonable likelihood of success because its filing challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685 relies on material it has not established as statutory prior art, is based on art that is cumulative to what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already considered and includes legally improper obviousness analysis.
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs is a subsidiary of hedge fund manager Kyle Bass' Hayman Credes Master Fund LP, Acorda said, claiming that Bass is using provisions of the America Invents Act to manipulate markets.
“The board also should exercise its discretion to deny a petition such as this filed by a hedge fund using the inter partes review process itself as a tool for financial gain,” the company said.
Bass' group has filed several inter partes review petitions in recent months. He said in a speech in January that he planned to use the AIA proceedings to challenge drug patents, according to the Financial Times.
Bass said that invalidating the patents not only would lower the price of drugs by opening the door for generic-drug competitors but also was part of an investment strategy to grow his fund, which he said has taken a short position on the drugmakers' stock and stands to gain if the stock price drops.
Bass sent a letter to Congress in April outlining his strategy and lobbying against proposed legislation known as the Innovation Act that would change the claim construction standard for inter partes review to make it more difficult to invalidate patents.
He said that his challenges "fulfill and define the purpose" of the AIA proceedings and that he is targeting patents that "do not represent true innovation or invention."
Acorda argued that the challenge to Ampyra should be denied in part because the petition does not name all of the real parties-in-interest, namely the undisclosed investors that provided substantial funding to Bass for the petition as part of their participation in his hedge fund.
“Allowing hedge funds to use the IPR process to manipulate financial markets is inconsistent with congressional intent,” Acorda argued Tuesday. “Instituting inter partes review here will only encourage more such filings, which will burden additional patent owners their industries, and the office.”
Representatives for Bass and for Acorda could not be reached Wednesday for comment.
The patent-at-issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,663,685.
The Coalition for Affordable Drugs is represented by Ki O, Sarah E. Spires, Parvathi Kota and Paul J. Skiermont of Skiermont Puckett LLP.
Acorda Therapeutics Inc. is represented by Gerald Flattmann and Naveen Modi of Paul Hastings LLP.
The case is Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. Acorda Therapeutics Inc., case number IPR2015-00720, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
May 31, 2015
For years, the entites now being referred to as "patent trolls", generally shell companies that acquire patents and assert them against other businesses... Read More »
Comments
Ananthi It’s now safe to say “patent troll” in polite company. For years, the trolls – which are shell companies that acquire old patents in order to shake down real businesses – have claimed the term has no place in legal discourse, and pushed for a variety of jargon-y alternatives like “NPE” and “PAE” instead.
Well, so much for that. On Tuesday, no less than Justice Antonin Scalia gave the term its proper place by including it for the first time in the Supreme Court lexicon, warning that a ruling “increases the in terrorem power of patent trolls.”
Scalia’s words (confirmed as a first by Professor Mark Lemley) came in a case in which a patent troll called Commil, controlled by an asbestos lawyer, is suing Cisco CSCO over a 2001 patent that describes methods of implementing wireless networking.
The case itself turned on an arcane point of patent law (see THE? next section if you’re into that sort of thing); the Supreme Court resolved it, in part, by instructing a Texas court to revisit a $67 million verdict against Cisco. But the case’s larger significance could turn out to be the Supreme Court’s explicit acknowledgement of trolls’ pernicious influence in the patent system.
Scalia’s troll comment came as part of a dissenting opinion, but the other judges likewise addressed the problem:
“Some companies may use patents as a sword to go after defendants for money, even when their claims are frivolous,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a 6-2 majority. “This behavior can impose a ‘harmful tax on innovation’.”
Well, so much for that. On Tuesday, no less than Justice Antonin Scalia gave the term its proper place by including it for the first time in the Supreme Court lexicon, warning that a ruling “increases the in terrorem power of patent trolls.”
Scalia’s words (confirmed as a first by Professor Mark Lemley) came in a case in which a patent troll called Commil, controlled by an asbestos lawyer, is suing Cisco CSCO over a 2001 patent that describes methods of implementing wireless networking.
The case itself turned on an arcane point of patent law (see THE? next section if you’re into that sort of thing); the Supreme Court resolved it, in part, by instructing a Texas court to revisit a $67 million verdict against Cisco. But the case’s larger significance could turn out to be the Supreme Court’s explicit acknowledgement of trolls’ pernicious influence in the patent system.
Scalia’s troll comment came as part of a dissenting opinion, but the other judges likewise addressed the problem:
“Some companies may use patents as a sword to go after defendants for money, even when their claims are frivolous,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a 6-2 majority. “This behavior can impose a ‘harmful tax on innovation’.”
May 31, 2015
His Menlo Park, New Jersey, lab was so productive that he promised "a minor invention every ten days and a big thing every six months or so." All together... Read More »
Comments
Ananthi Thomas Edison is usually thought of as the greatest inventor ever, bringing the automatic telegraph, the phonograph, and alkaline battery into the world.
His Menlo Park, New Jersey, lab was so productive that he promised "a minor invention every ten days and a big thing every six months or so."
All together, he had 2,332 patents to his name.
But according to Stephen Fry at the Telegraph, Apple chief design officer Jony Ive has been way more prolific than Edison.
You — and your friends and family — live their lives surrounded by things his inventive hands have touched. The iPhone, the iPad, the new MacBook.
"Ive's inventiveness can perhaps most starkly be expressed by revealing that he has nearly 5,000 patents to his name," Fry writes.
That's double the number of patents as Edison, who was 84 years old when he passed away.
Ive is only 48. Barring a tragedy or change of career course, he has decades left of inventing left in him.
His Menlo Park, New Jersey, lab was so productive that he promised "a minor invention every ten days and a big thing every six months or so."
All together, he had 2,332 patents to his name.
But according to Stephen Fry at the Telegraph, Apple chief design officer Jony Ive has been way more prolific than Edison.
You — and your friends and family — live their lives surrounded by things his inventive hands have touched. The iPhone, the iPad, the new MacBook.
"Ive's inventiveness can perhaps most starkly be expressed by revealing that he has nearly 5,000 patents to his name," Fry writes.
That's double the number of patents as Edison, who was 84 years old when he passed away.
Ive is only 48. Barring a tragedy or change of career course, he has decades left of inventing left in him.
May 31, 2015
In a patent awarded today, Google outlined a voice search system that would assess users’ accents and predict their preferences for restaurants, places, and... Read More »