jeffrey mcintyre
Partner
Joined Patexia at Oct 05, 2016
Partner at Womble Bond Dickinson
jeffrey mcintyre
Jan 22, 2018
Under U.S. law, inventors own patent rights to their inventions unless and until they transfer such rights to another. Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Advanced Video Technologies v. HTC Corp. in which a co-inventor refused to assign patent rights to her invention to her employer... Read More
jeffrey mcintyre
Nov 27, 2017
Last week, in BASF v. Johnson Matthey, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the phrase “effective to catalyze” rendered claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. Given the prevalence of “effective” language in U.S. claims (for example, “effective amount”), it’s worth taking a look at what happened in BASF... Read More
Jeff McIntyre
Jun 12, 2017
Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction (PI) precluding Aurobindo from marketing its proposed isosulfan blue (ISB) product in the U.S. The district court originally based the PI on three patents: two process patents and one product patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the... Read More
Jeff McIntyre
Jun 12, 2017
Last month, the Supreme Court (in TC Heartland v. Kraft) recounted prior precedent standing for the proposition that 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive statute for determining venue in a patent case, and that 1400(b) is not to be supplemented by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).... Read More
Jeff McIntyre
Mar 18, 2017
Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, finding that Watson’s generic version of LIALDA® did not infringe U.S. patent 6,773,720 (“the ‘720 patent”). In particular, the Federal Circuit found that no infringement existed because Watson’s product did not satisfy the ‘720 claim limitation... Read More
Jeff McIntyre
Mar 17, 2017
Last week, the Delaware district court granted Aurobindo’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of Reckitt’s patents directed to a “modified release drug product” containing a sustained-release formulation of guaifenesin and an immediate-release formulation of guaifenesin. The court found Reckitt had not produced sufficient evidence that two different formulations existed... Read More