No. 20-1604
Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., et al.
Tags: anticipation claim-construction incentives medical-treatment method-of-treatment novelty patent patent-law patent-validity prior-art recombinant-protein
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether courts may disregard the express claim term "recombinant" so as to render a method-of-treatment patent anticipated—and thus invalid—in light of prior-art treatments that used the naturally occurring human protein, where it is undisputed that the recombinant protein was not used in the prior art?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether courts may disregard the express claim term 'recombinant' so as to render a method-of-treatment patent anticipated—and thus invalid—in light of prior-art treatments that used the naturally occurring human protein, where it is undisputed that the recombinant protein was not used in the prior art?
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-03
Reply of petitioner Biogen MA Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2021-07-19
Brief of respondents EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc. in opposition filed.
2021-06-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 19, 2021.
2021-06-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 17, 2021 to July 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-05-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 17, 2021)
Attorneys
Biogen MA Inc.
Jeffrey Alan Lamken — MoloLamken LLP, Petitioner
EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.
Mark Andrew Perry — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Respondent