Remove 2005 Remove Invention Remove Patent Infringement
article thumbnail

COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Infringement? The Battle Between Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech Continues

SpicyIP

COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Infringement? The Battle Between Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech Continues Last month, the patent battle between COVID-19 mRNA vaccine manufacturers continued with BioNTech/Pfizer filing a strong defense and counter-claim to Moderna’s allegations of patent infringement.

article thumbnail

Patent Trolls: Navigating the Fine Line Between Innovation and Exploitation in India’s Legal Landscape

Intepat

Introduction Patent trolls are entities that do not actively develop their inventions but instead acquire patent rights for obvious inventions to prevent others from working on them or to collect licensing fees. On the flip side, the negative effects of patent trolls are significant.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

[Guest post] Closing the patent loophole across borders

The IPKat

Patents set themselves apart from other IP rights as inventions are often composed of multiple physical components or steps in a method, which does not necessarily have to exist or be performed at the same time and place. The implications of this debate are far from hypothetical or theoretical. Research in Motion, Ltd., 3d 1282 (Fed.

Patent 84
article thumbnail

Claim Construction Order Sets Stage for Moderna v. Pfizer Vaccine Patent Showdown

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Moderna filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Pfizer and BioNTech in August 2022, alleging that the defendants COVID-19 vaccine infringes three patents related to Moderna’s mRNA vaccine technology. United States Patent Nos. 2005) (en banc). 10,898,574, 10,702,600, and 10,933,127.

Patent 97
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Debates Scope of 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor and the Meaning of “Solely”

Patently-O

highlights tensions in the court’s interpretation of the patent infringement safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) provides an exemption from patent infringement liability for certain activities related to seeking regulatory approval of drugs and medical devices. 193 (2005). 193 (2005). 271(e)(1).

article thumbnail

Some Concerns about the Amendment Process to Key Patent Levers: A “Captured” Patent Office?

SpicyIP

This is because they allow competitors to the patent applicant, who are more likely to be more familiar with the invention sought to being patented, to contribute to the examination process by bringing forth the latest “prior art” to the attention of the Patent Office.

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Genus Claims to Stevia Production Method Lacking Written Description and Narrower Claims as Combining Natural Phenomena with an Abstract Idea

Patently-O

PureCircle sued SweeGen for patent infringement back in 2018, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. The patents here claim a method of making Rebaudioside X. 112(a) and requires a patent specification to demonstrate the inventor actually possessed the full scope of the claimed invention at the time of filing.