#pharmaceutical-patent-law

#pharmaceutical-patent-law

Incyte tops this list due to its rare combination of commercial scale, cash generation, and pipeline depth. The company posted FY2025 revenue of $5.14 billion, up 21.2% YoY, anchored by Jakafi generating $828.2 million in Q4 2025 alone (+7% YoY) and Opzelura delivering $207.3 million (+28% YoY). With $3.58 billion in cash and 14 pivotal clinical trials underway, Incyte offers an acquirer immediate revenue, margin expansion potential, and a deep oncology pipeline spanning KRASG12D, CDK2 inhibition, and mutCALR.

According to the patent, a specific crystalline form of the drug known as polymorph C may be more effective than other versions because it is absorbed more efficiently by the body. The patent also notes that laboratory studies showed the drug reduced tumor growth and helped mice with brain tumors live longer, prompting early clinical trials to test whether the treatment is safe and effective in humans.

The technology at issue is a subcutaneous cosmetic penile implant, a silicone sleeve placed between the skin and 'Buck's fascia' to enhance girth and length.

When generic drug manufacturers have issues like contamination, it is difficult for those who take the medications to know if they are affected. There is no standardized way to look up the data for where the pills in your bottle came from. ProPublica made an app that makes the lookup more straightforward. Even though generic drugs make up 90% of prescriptions dispensed in the U.S., the FDA only provides piecemeal information about them.

We provide thought partnership. When a company is developing a drug, there's a lot of work involved, such as understanding the science, designing a study and generating good data. We come in and explain what the standard of care looks like today for their patient population, and what we think it will look like in five to eight years or whenever they plan to launch their therapy.

The Food and Drug Administration commissioner's effort to drastically shorten the review of drugs favored by President Donald Trump's administration is causing alarm across the agency, stoking worries that the plan may run afoul of legal, ethical, and scientific standards long used to vet the safety and effectiveness of new medicines. Marty Makary's program is causing new anxiety and confusion among staff already rocked by layoffs, buyouts, and leadership upheavals, according to seven current or recently departed staffers.

Congress set the patent term at twenty years from the earliest effective filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (not counting provisional or foreign national filing). But that statutory baseline is just the starting point. But, the actual term is shaped by a series of prosecution decisions, USPTO delays, terminal disclaimers, and patent family structure.

Today represents the first real acknowledgement that team and those scientists have gotten that their technology was instrumental in Covid-19 vaccines, or at least the Moderna vaccine as we're announcing today with this settlement. This settlement validates the scientific contributions made by the researchers at Arbutus and Genevant in developing the lipid nanoparticle delivery system.

The settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant's and Arbutus' lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The CAFC affirmed as to anticipation but reversed as to obviousness, holding that the Board relied on the wrong legal standard in finding no motivation to combine. The court emphasized that KSR v. Teleflex explicitly eschews such a rigid approach to obviousness, indicating the PTAB failed to properly apply flexible, common-sense reasoning when evaluating whether combining prior art references would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.

This week in Other Barks & Bites, IPWatchdog's IP news roundup: the House of Representatives passes drug patent legislation, while antitrust legislation targeting patent-related activities is introduced into the Senate and the Trump administration mandates pricing information for pharmaceutical ads; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issues a pair of precedential decisions on cases with multiple petitions; the USPTO issues marijuana-related trademark guidelines and a notice on modifying patent term adjustment practices;

In a recent Tradespace and Above the Law survey, two-thirds of companies that draft patents in-house described IP as a value driver, while 71 percent of companies that outsource drafting viewed IP as a cost. When drafting and prosecution move inside, IP teams work closer to engineers and product leaders. This proximity improves invention quality, strengthens claim strategy, and aligns patent decisions with product direction, market timing, and business priorities.

This week in Washington IP news, the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax, and Capital Access examines how well creditors are able to identify small businesses that are eligible for additional capital. Elsewhere, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosts the third event of the 2023 Women's Entrepreneurship Symposium. Also, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) discusses the future of manufacturing innovation in Germany and the United States.

On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively "Arbutus") v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc. (collectively " Moderna "), No. 1:22-cv-00252 (D. Del.).

The enormity of the problem cannot be understated. A Federal Circuit panel recently reached a final decision that, if not overturned, will destroy the U.S. patent system, and will ironically impact the most valuable patents disproportionately. The ruling was simple and continues a disturbing and inexplicable trend-a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches.