Sterne Kessler s IP Hot Topics Podcast Wraps First Quarter Episodes with Howard University President
News provided by
Share this article
WASHINGTON, April 20, 2021 /PRNewswire/ The podcast
IP Hot Topics, presented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, closed out the first quarter of the year by hosting the President of Howard University, Dr. Wayne A.I. Frederick. The episode covered several topics, including: Howard s legacy of research and innovation; the role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in graduating STEM students; developing intellectual property; solutions to the challenges faced by Howard and Black communities during the pandemic; and more.
The episode was the sixth in the Innovation Conversations series, which features discussions with noteworthy innovators, influencers, authors, scientists, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials and other prominent players in intellectual property. The
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, oral arguments will commence in
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., and William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice Group, will be live-tweeting updates from the firm’s account, @sternekessler. The live-tweeting will begin at 11 a.m. EST and continue throughout the duration of the proceedings.
In
Minerva v. Hologic, the Supreme Court will confront the doctrine of “assignor estoppel,” which prevents an inventor who has assigned a patent from later contesting the patent’s validity. The petitioner, Minerva, argues that the doctrine should be overruled because it lacks footing in the text of the Patent Act, Supreme Court case law, or sound policy. Minerva argues in the alternative that, even if the doctrine is not discarded in its entirety, its scope should be sharply limited. Hologic, naturally, disagrees on both counts. The United States, appearing as amicus curiae, submits that the doctrine should be
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
We have been keeping a close eye on the patent suit filed by Canopy Growth against GW Pharma in the Western District of Texas’s Waco Division, a venue that has attained recent fame for its speed to trial in patent litigation. In its complaint, Canopy has alleged infringement of a patent directed to cannabinoid extraction technology, accusing activities related to GW Pharma’s FDA-approved epilepsy drug, EPIDIOLEX®. In a more recent development, GW Pharma has moved to dismiss Canopy’s suit, asserting that the company lacks the minimum contacts and level of business activity necessary to support jurisdiction in Texas. GW Pharma also argues that Canopy has failed to state a claim with respect to infringement by GW Pharma. This kicks off early motions practice in the case that will play out, we expect, over the next few months.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On February 4, 2021, Congress introduced another CBD deregulation bill, H.R. 841 – Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act of 2021, which, like H.R. 8179, legalizes marketing of hemp, CBD, or any other ingredient derived from hemp in a dietary supplement, provided the supplement satisfies other applicable requirements. Next, the bill goes to a House standing committee where experts will review, research, and revise the bill before voting on whether or not to send it to the House floor for a vote. Given that this bill was introduced early in the legislative cycle, observers are hopeful for movement under the current administration.
Naughty With Nature
Last week, the FDA issued two warning letters to companies selling drugs where CBD is listed as an ingredient on the label. The FDA’s “naughty list” of companies manufacturing CBD-ingredient drugs is growing with four total companies added this year.
The letter reminds recipients that, to date, the FDA has only approved one prescription drug containing CBD, Epidiolex, used for treating seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex, but has not approved any over-the-counter drugs containing CBD. The letter notes that none of the companies’ products in question comply with the requirements for lawful marketing. The letter expresses the FDA’s concerns for consumer safety that could arise from use of these CBD-ingredient drugs – the efficacy and the manufacturer claims of which have not been evaluated. Additionally, the letters identify violations of good manufacturing practices discovered upon inspection of the companies’ facilities.