United States: Patent

Intellectual property due diligence often gets relegated to a final checklist item in acquisitions, but this approach can lead to costly oversights. Jason Balich explores why IP assessment should receive the same early, strategic attention as financial analysis, and provides a framework for evaluating whether a target company's patents, trademarks, and trade secrets are properly secured and enforceable.

Under the America Invents Act, what qualifies as prior art is measured against a claimed invention’s effective filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) encompasses inventions “patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” before that date, and § 102(a)(2) adds U.S. patents and published applications that name another inventor and were effectively filed earlier.

When a patent is asserted against your company, in a demand letter, a district court complaint, or an ITC investigation, one of the first strategic questions is whether to attack the patent itself, and if so, where. District court is one option. The Patent Office offers three separate paths, each with its own statute, timing rules, and consequences.

When you settle a patent dispute or license your technology, you may unknowingly trigger patent marking obligations that can eliminate your ability to recover pre-suit damages. A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates how settlement agreements transform patent owners into licensors with active compliance duties, and why failing to monitor licensee marking practices can result in case dismissal and substantial attorney fee awards.

The explosive growth of AI-driven data centers has sparked a surge in patent infringement litigation targeting the specialized infrastructure that powers these facilities. From advanced cooling systems and high-performance processors to networking equipment and power management technologies, patent holders are increasingly asserting their rights against data center operators who integrate these complex systems. What makes these facilities such attractive targets for patent enforcement, and how might ongoing

Takeda Pharmaceuticals has initiated legal action against Polpharma Biologics over a vedolizumab biosimilar, marking the first BPCIA case involving this particular drug. The lawsuit alleges patent infringement across six patents related to ENTYVIO's treatment methods and dosing regimens, with Polpharma's commercial launch anticipated following FDA approval in 2027.

Biocon Limited has commercially launched YESAFILI (aflibercept-jbvf), a biosimilar to Regeneron's EYLEA, in the United States following settlement agreements that lifted previous injunction barriers. This marks the second aflibercept biosimilar available in the U.S. market, entering a competitive landscape where patent litigation continues to shape biosimilar entry strategies. The launch follows a complex legal journey involving multiple jurisdictions and settlement negotiations that ultimately permitted ea

Share on Twitter Print Share by Email Share Back to top Internal Revenue Code Section 409(p) (Section 409(p)) imposes significant obligations on S corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) with severe penalties for noncompliance.

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a landmark pharmaceutical patent dispute concerning whether a generic drug manufacturer may face liability for induced patent infringement after marketing a “skinny-label” generic that omits patented uses from its FDA-approved labeling.